(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Five civilized tribes in Oklahoma"

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 



L 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



I 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



01-309 
FIVE^CIYILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA 



■», . • 



REPORTS 



OF THE 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
AND EVIDENTIARY PAPERS 



IN SUPPORT 
OP 



S. 7625 

A BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF 

THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN 

OKLAHOMA 



SIXTY^ECOND CONGRESS 
THIRD SESSION 




Printed for tho use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 



WASHIKOTOK 

QOVEBNMBNT PBIKTIKG OPVIOS 

1918 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



THRJfEWY02K 
I^BilC LIBRARY 

^TOn, L6IMOX AH9 

l« 1916 t 



COM.MITTEK OX INDIAN AFFAIKS. 



United Status Senatk. 
ROBERT J. GIVMBLE, South Dakota, Chairman. 



MOSES E. CLAPP, Minnesota. V 

PORTER J. McCUMBER, North DakoUK 
GEORGE SUTHERLAND. Utah. 
ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, Wisconsin. 
CHARLES CURTIS, Kansas. 
NORRIS BROWN, Nebraska. 
JOSEPH M. DIXON. Montana. 



Ralph H. Cass, Clerk. 



i^ARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. 
WILLIAM J. STONE, MIs.«*ourI. 
nJEFF DAVIS, Arkansas. 
R0^:RT L. OWEN, Oklahoma. 
GEOR>]i|: E. CH.\MBERL.YIN, Oregon. 
HENRY %. MYERS. Montana. 
HENRY F.\ASnURST, Arizona. 



A 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Ilei>ort of Assistant Secretary Adams, dated April 22, li)12 2-13 

Exhibits accompanying report, (a) being draft of proposed law; (b) 
directions Issued February 9, 1907, to affirm pro forma all decisions 

and findings of commission 14-15 

Report of Oommissloner J. George Wright, dated November 15, 1907, con- 
taining list of claimants who were found to be entitled to be enrolled, 
but who were not enrolled as result of mistake of Government officers— 15-25 
Report of Assistant Secretary Adams, dated July 17, 1912, on H. R. 22334, 

being a bill for the final disposition of the affairs of the Five Tribes 25-27 

Letter of Secretary Fisher transmitting rei>ort on H. R. 22334 27 

Report of Assistant Secretary Adams, dated July 2, 1912, on H. R. 19123, 

being a bill for the relief of Mississippi Choctaw claimants 27-37 

Letter of Secretary- E. A. Hitchcoclt, dated March 17, 1903, relative to 

rights of children of an enrolled full-blood parent 37-39 

Report of W. C. Pollock, dated January 15, 1912 40-44 

Exhibit 1. containing list of Seminoles whose names were omitted 
from final rolls because no application was made or by reason of 

mistake or oversight 44-45 

Exhibit 2, containing list of Creeks whose names were omitted from 
final rolls because no application was made or by reason of mis- 
take or oversight 45-52 

Exhibit 3, containing list of Cherokees whose names were omitted 
from final rolls because no application was made or by reason of 

mistake or oversight 52-65 

Exhibit 4, list of (^hickasaws whose names were omitted from final 
rolls because no application was made or by reason of mistake or 

oversight 66-<J7 

Exhibit 5, list Choctaws whose names were omitted from final rolls 
because no application was made or by reason of mistake or over- 
sight 67-71 

Exhibit 6, list of Choctaw Freedmen whose names were omitted 
from final rolls l)ecause nc^ application was made or by, reason of 

mistake or oversight 71-92 

Letter of Dixon H. Bynum, dated Jan. 27, 1911. relative to Indians in 

penal or eleemosynary institutions not enrolled 92-93 

Report of Secretary Balllnger, dated Feb. 12, 1910, relative to enrollment 

matters 94-99 

Report of J. George Wright, commissioner, on bill proposing to extend 

provisions of act of Feb. 6, 1901, to Choctaws and Chickasaws 99-102 

B^rt of Joseph W. Howell, dated Mar. 3, 1909 103-282 

JAst of 729 claimants included in Howell report, not enrolled, whose 

cases are meritorious 219-282 

List of claims submitted by attorneys (index in back) 283-663 

III 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 



[8. 7625, Sixty-second Congress, third session.] 
A BILL For the relief of certain members of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate an^ Hon.^e of Representatives of the United 
states of America in Congress assembled , That the Secretary of the Interior 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to — • 

First. Add to the rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes the names of minors 
living March fourth, nineteen hundred and six, either of whose parents is on 
said rolls or would have been entitled to have been enrolled, if living, at the 
date fixed for determining the right to enrollment, and also the names of 
Indians Incarcerated, insane, or otherwise Incompetent, including those who 
would be in the restricted class if enrolled for whom no application was made 
or projier proof submitted within the time limit provided by law, but who were 
otherwise entitled to enrollment under the laws governing such matters. 

Second. To consider and determine all claims for enrollment in any of said 
tribes which were favorably decided by the commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes, but which did not reach the Secretary of the Interior in time for con- 
sideration and decision on or before March fourth, nineteen hundred and 
^ven, adding to the rolls of said tribes the names of those he may find entitled 
to enrollment. 

Third. To prepare a special roll which shall contain the names of all persons 
identified as Mississippi Choctaws prior to March fourth, nineteen hundred 
and seven, as well as those entitled to such identification but who did not 
remove to and make bona fide settlement in the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation 
within the time prescribed by law. 

Fourth. To review and determine, in conformity with the laws governing 
such matters at the time applications were made and upon the records as 
made up, all citizenship cases in said tribes decided by the Secretary of the 
Interior January first, nineteen hundred and seven, or subsequently thereto, 
adversely to the claimants and to add to the rolls of said tribe the name of 
any person he may find entitled to enrollment, excluding, however, those cases 
Involving applications for transfer of names from the freedmen's roll to the 
rolls of citizens by blood. 

Fifth. To review and determine the right to enrollment upon the existing 
records and under the law under which application was made of any person 
found by the commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or the United States 
courts in Indian Territory to be entitled to enrollment, but who were pre- 
vented from being enrolled by any finding, judgment, or decree of the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw citizenship court, and to enroll such as may bo found to be so 
(ntltled upon the proper tribal roll. 

Sixth. To determine the right to enrollment of persons whose applications 
were denied under the act of May thirty-first, nineteen hundred, because of 
lack of tribal enrollment who are shown by existing records to be otherwise 
prima facie entitled to enrollment because of Indian blood and residence, said 
determination to be irrespective of the act of May thirty-first, nineteen 
hundred. 

Sec. 2. That all persons enrolled on the final citizenship rolls of cither of the 
Five Civilized Tribes under the provisions of this act sliall share equally in the 
distribution of the tribal property with those persons enrolled prior to March 
fourth, nineteen hundred and seven, except that they shall be paid, in lieu of 
allotment of land, a sum of money from the funds of said tribes equal to three 
times the value of the land he would have received as fixed by the classification 

69282—13 1 1 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



2 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

of the lands of the neveral tribes for the purposes of allotment: Provided, 
however, That those persons hereafter enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws under 
the third class named in this act shall receive in full satisfaction of any claim 
they may have in said tribal property a sum of money equal to one thousand 
and forty dollars: Provided further, That the funds and property of all persons 
enrolled under this act shall be subject to the same restrictions and limitations 
as are imposed uix)n i>ersons having a like Status under existing law. 

Sec. .1. That the Secretary of the Interior is directed to proceed as expedi- 
tiously as he reasonably can to perform' the duties directed to be performed by 
this act; and there is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury 
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, the sum of sixty thousand 
dollars to defray the expenses of the work herein directed to be performed. 
Said work shall be fully completed within one year from and after the passage 
of this act. 

Sec. 4. That the shares in the tribal property of persons enrolled under this 
act shall not be liable for the payment of any debt, obligation, or contract 
incurred or entered into prior to the segregation thereof from the common tribal 
proi)erty,' except that prior to any payment to any person enrolled under this 
act the Secretarj- shall investigate the claim or claims of any attorney or attor- 
neys for services rendered, or moneys expended in behalf of, or which resulted 
in the benefit of, any ikm^sou or persoiis, individually or collectively, enrolled 
under this act, and shall allow a fee or fees based upon the principle of quan- 
tum meruit. Where any money has l>een loaned or advanced to an attorney 
to defray the exi>enses of any such claim or claims, secured by an interest in 
any ctmtract or contracts with any claimant or claimants, tlie Secretary is 
authorized to ascertain such amount or amounts so loaned or advanced and 
to make a reasonable award out of the fees allowed said attorney, irrespective of 
any contract or agreement, in full settlement thereof. The fee allowed under 
this act shall be deducted from the amount any claimant Is entitled to here- 
under, and shall be paid by warrant drawn by the Secretary in favor of said 
attorney or other person : Provided, That in the performance of any of the 
duties herein required the Secretary or any officer or agent acting for him shall 
have power to administer oaths and to examine witnesses, and any person who 
shall knowingly give or offer false testimony relative to any material matter 
in issue shall forfeit any claim he may have to any property right, and may 
also be proceeded against in tlie proper court as in other cases i)rovided by law. 

Department of the Interior, 

'Washington^ April 22, 1912. 
Hon. John H. Stephens, 

Ohoirmnn Vommittee on Indian Affairs^ 

House of Re present afives. 
Sir: In compliance with the informal request of yourself and 
other members of the Committee on Indian Affairs, expressed at our 
recent conference, I am writing you with a view to furnishing the 
information which it was then agreed upon should be placed at the 
disposal of the committee respecting the claims of certain classes of 
persons whose names were omitted from the rolls of the Five Civi- 
lized Tribes approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

I will endeavor to supply the desired information by stating in 
.substance the several questions discussed at the conference and giving 
you the facts, with as much precision as is possible at this time, con- 
cerning each. 

1. At what time, in the course of the adjudication In the office of the 8tK*retary 
of the Interior, was the deliberate consideration of Indian citizenship ctises 
succtHided by the hasty examination Incident to the attempt to complete the 
enrollment work by March 4. 1007? 

The answer to this question is P'ebruary 9, 1907, which is evidenced 
by an order issued that day bv the Secretary of the Interior to the 
Chief of the Indian Territory division (copy herewith). The period 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. ^ 

of haste therefore extended from February 9 to March 4, 1907, 
both inclusive. 

2, What classes of cases should be investigated or reexamined if any re- 
opening of this work is to be authorized by Congress? 

Class I includes those persons who, in a broad sense, were under 
legal disability at the time of the making of the rolls. More specifi- 
cally stated, it embraces (a) minors living March 4, 1906, either of 
whose parents is enrolled, or would have been entitled to enrollment 
if living at the date fixed for determining the right to enrollment ; (&) 
persons incarcerated, insane, or otherwise incompetent; and (c) per- 
sons who, if enrolled, would be members of the restricted class; for 
none of whom application was made or proper proof submitted with- 
in the time prescribed by law, but who were otherwise apparently 
entitled to enrollment under the laws governing such matters. 

A large pint of the field work of investigatinj^ cases of this class 
has been accomplished by representatives of this department since 
March 4, 1907, although there are some cases yet to be inquired into. 
The fruit of this field work to date is embodied in two lists heretofore 
forwarded to Congress. The first was transmitted to the chainnan of 
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs by letter of February 12,1910, 
copy of which was furni^^hed the chairman of the House Committee on 
Indian Affairs by letter of February 23, 1910. A copy of the letter 
of February 12, 1910, appears on page 477 of the printed report of 
" Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Repre- 
sentatives, Sixty-first Congress, second session, on H. E. 19279, H. R. 
19552, and H. K. 22830," and the list referred to is commented upon 
in the last paragraph of page 279 of that report, which shows that it 
was not intended to convey the impression that a final conclusion 
had been reached as to the merits of these cases. It contains, ex- 
clusive of duplications, 729 names, some of which, however, are not 
within the noncompetent class. 

The second list, consisting of several parts, was transmitted to you 
by my letter of February 19, 1912, wherein I stated that the persons 
therein named, 537 in all, apparently have qualifications which entitle 
them to enrollment in one or another of the Five Civilized Tribes. 
but whose names do not appear upon the final rolls. The rights or 
these persons were thoroughly looked into, and the examination as 
to them may be said to be complete, although, as indicated above, the 
investigation did not extend to all persons similarly situated. This 
investigation was completed as to the Seminoles and Creeks. It also 
covered all people reported in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations 
and all in the Cherokee except about three counties — Delaware, 
Craig, and Mayes — where a large number of full bloods live. I am 
informed that this investigation was made upon the informal request 
of the committee and that it was stopped about the last of January, 
1911, with the hope that the information obtained to that time might 
be put in shape to submit to the committee before the end of that 
seasion of Congress. 

The lists transmitted Febniary 19, 1912, include many of the names 
in the list transmitted February 12, 1910, as well as some cases which 
belong properly to the classes referred to hereinafter. Eliminating 
duplications, it is estimated that the lists transmitted with both of 
said letters do not net more than 800 names. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



4 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Class II. — ^This class, consisting of 52 persons, embraces those 
claimants whose applications were received and favorably considered 
bv the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes prior to March 4, 
1907, but which were not forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior 
in time for action. Briefly stated, it is claimed that these persons 
failed to secure enrollment through no fault of their own, but solely 
through delay or inadvertence, and that their rights have never been 
finally adjudicated. The names of these claimants and the pertinent 
facts connected with each case are set forth in a report rendered by 
the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes dated November 15. 
1907, copy of which was transmitted to Congress with the letter oi 
February 12, 1910, referred to above. All but one of the persons 
included in this class are included in the two lists referred to in con- 
nection with Class I. 

Class III. — This class should include only such as were identified 
as Mississippi Choctaws from September 4, 1906, to March 4, 1907, 
both inclusive, or who were not notified of their identification until 
September 4, 1906. The act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 641), contains 
a provision: 

41. All persons duly ideutifled by the Commission to tlie Five Civilized Tribes 
nnder the provisions of section 21 of the act of Congress approved June 28, 
1898 (30 Stats., 495), as Mississippi Choctaws entitled to benefits under article 
14 of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded 
September 27, 1830, may, at any time within six months after the date of their 
identification as Mississippi Choctaws by the said commission, make bona fide 
settlement within the Choctaw-Chickasaw country, and upon proof of such 
settlement to such commission within one year after the date of their said 
identification as Mississippi Choctaws shall be enrolled by such commission as 
Mississippi Choctaws entitled to allotment as herein provided for citizens of the 
tribes, subject to tjie special provisions herein provided as to Mississippi Choc- 
taws, and said enrollment shall be final when approved by the Secretary of the 
Interior. • • • 

The act of April 26, 1906, declared : 

That the rolls of the tribes affected by this act shall be fully completed on 
or before the 4th day of March, 1907, and the Secretary of the Interior shall 
have no jurisdiction to approve the enrollment of any person after said date. 

Persons identified as Mississippi Choctaws within the period of six 
months prior to March 4, 1907, were thus deprived of the privilege 
given them under this act of 1902. 

There were other persons, approximating 1,100 in number, who 
were identified as Mississippi Choctaws, and who had sufficient time 
to remove to the Choctaw country, but who failed to perfect their 
right by removal. Such persons were not eligible to final enrollment 
under the agreement of 1902, and they should not be included in this 
class. 

Class IV. — In this class are included those persons whose cases 
were decided adversely to the claimants by the Secretary of the 
Interior, from February 9 to March 4, 1907, both dates included. 
Stated more specifically, this class embraces those persons who claim 
injustice was done them (a) by reason of a misunderstanding re- 
specting certain jurisdictional acts and a misapplication of certain 
opinions relating thereto, whereby records which were made up in 
the field, after much labor and expense, with a view to decisions 
upon the merits of the cases, were finally disposed of upon technical 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 5 

grounds, and (b) by reason of the hurry and confusion incident to 
the attempted completion of the enrollment work by March 4, 1907. 

To explain the jurisdictional phase of the matter it is necessary 
to refer somewhat in detail to certain acts and opinions. The Com- 
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes having submitted, prior to 1896, 
reports to Congress challen^ng the correctness of the tribal rolls 
theretofore made by the Indian officials, by reason both of the addi- 
tion of naines thereto of persons not deemed entitled to enrollment 
and the omission therefrom of the names of persons lawfully entitled 
to Indian citizenship. Congress by the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 
321, 339), took away, in a large measure, from the Indian officials 
the authority to make their citizenship rolls and conferred jurisdic- 
tion of the subject upon officers of the United States. 

Under said act, which was applicable to all of the Five Civilized 
Tribes and intended to accomplish the making of complete rolls, 
claimants were allowed to make application to said commission for 
citizenship within three months from the passage of the act, and the 
commission was required to determine the right of the applicant to 
be so admitted and enrolled and to decide all such applications within 
90 days after made. 

The act also conferred jurisdiction on the tribal courts and com- 
mittees to receive applications for three months with direction to 
decide the same within 30 days. Right of appeal was given to the 
United States District Court for Indian Territory as to all cases 
decided under this act, both by the commission and by the Indian 
tribunals, with the declaration that the judgment of the court should 
be final. The law was silent as to whether decisions of the com- 
mission and the tribal tribunals should be final or not in the absence 
of appeal. 

The said act also confirmed the then existing tribal rolls and di- 
rected the manner of making the final rolls in the following lan- 
guage: 

That the said corumlssion, after the expiration of six months, shall cause a 
complete roll of citizenship of each of said nations to be made up from their 
records, and add thereto the names of citizens whose right may be conferred 
under thi« act, and said rolls shall be, and are hereby, made rolls of citizenship 
of said nations or tribes, subject, however, to the determination of the United 
States courts, as provided herein. 

The most serious question which arose under this act, in connection 
with subsequent acts, was whether Congress intended to confer any 
authority under it for the adjudication of the cases of persons having 
a tribal status, i. e., persons whose names appeared upon the tribal 
rolls or other official records, or whether the act contemplated only 
the adjudication of the claims of those persons whose alleged Indian 
rights had never been recognized by the tribal authorities. 

This question was decided by the Department of the Interior 
several years later and by the Department of . Justice still later. 
These rulings will be referred to in a subsequent connection. 

Another question which arose late in the course of the enroll- 
ment woik was whether decisions of the commission and the tribal 
tribunals under the act of June 10, 1896, were final, in the absence 
of appeal, in the sense of precluding any further consideration, under 
the agreements and later acts, of such cases. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



6 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

During the six months allowed under the act of June 10, 1896, 
the applications of approximately 76,000 persons, embraced in some 
7,500 claims, were received and passed upon by the commission. 
Hearings in the field were not had under this act, but the records 
were made up of affidavits and other papers filed with the commis- 
sion, and its decisions, which were not signed by any member of that 
body, were noted usualljr by the single word ^'Approved " or " Re- 
jected," indorsed in pencil upon the jackets of the cases. Much un- 
certainty seemed to exist as to what class of persons were required 
to submit their cases, and many applications were made by persons 
whose names appeared upon tribal rolls as well as by others. 

The next enrollment act was that of June 7, 1897 (30 Stat., 83), 
which, in so far as material, provides as follows: 

That said commission slmll continue to exercise all authority heretofore con- 
fer»ed on it by law to negotiate with the Five Tribes, and any aji^reement made 
. by it with any of said tribes, when ratified, shall operate to suspend any provi- 
sions of this act if in conflict therewith as to said nation: Provided, That the 
words " rolls of citizenship," as used in the act of June 10, 1896. making appro- 
priations for cilrrent and continjrent expenses of the Indian Department and 
fulfilling treaty stipulations with varous Indian tribes for the fiscal year end- 
ing June 30. 1897. shall be construed to mean the last authenticated rolls of 
each tribe which have been approved by the council of the nation and the 
descendants of those api>earing on such rolls, ;nid such additional names and 
their descendants as have been subsequently addetl, either by the council of 
such nation, the duly authorlzpfl courts thereof, or the commission under the 
act of June 10, lS9f>. And all other names appearing upon such rolls shall be 
open to investigation by such commission for a i>eriod of six months after the 
passage of this act. And any name appearing on sucu- rolls and not confirmed 
by the act of June 10. 189(5, as herein construed, may be stricken therefrom by 
such commission where the party affected shall have 10 days' previous notice 
that said commission will Investigate and determine the right of such party to 
remain upon such roll as a citizen of such nation: Provided also. That anyone 
whose name shall be stricken from the roll by such commission shall have the 
right of appeal, as provided In the act of June 10, 1896. 

Although many applications were made under the fori^froin^ acts, 
very little was accomplished thereunder toward the final <*ompletion 
of the enrollment work, the major portion of which ^^Vs accom- 
plished under the acts and a^eements that followed. ^ 

Next came the act of June 28, 1898, commonly known as t^e Curtis 
Act (32 Stat., 495), which was perhaps the most important of all 
enrollment acts. Under section 21 thereof provision was niVde for 
the making of rolls of citizens by blood and intermarriage \of the 
several tribes. Authority was also ^ven to make rolls of fr^dmen 
of such tribes and to identify Mississippi Choctaws. This act ^lodi- 
fied previous acts with respect to the confirmation of the tribal rolls 
by providing that the Cherokee roll of 1880 was the only roll in- 
tended to be confirmed by it and preceding acts of Congress, and 
authorized generally an investigation and adjudication of ihi rights 
of all persons whose names appeared on other rolls. It bontem- 
plated that such rolls should be purged of names placed, thereon 
through fraud or without authority ot law, but did not contemplate 
that new names should be added thereto except the names oi" children 
born after the rolls were made. 

This act was followed bv the jurisdictional act of May 31, 1900 
(31 Stat., 221, 236), whicli is discussed more fully hereinafter in 
connection with Class V. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 7 

The foregoinff acts, applying generally to the Five Civilized 
Tribes, were^ followed by acts passed in the years 1901 and 1902, ap- 
proving agreements with the respective tribes. These agreements 
retain^ in substantial form the general acts, but also contained pro- 
visions of a special nature applicable to the particular tribes. They 
were followed by other acts m 1905 and 1906 authorizing the enroll- 
ment of a class known as " new boms."' 

Referring again to the act of June 10, 1896, many appeals were 
taken thereunder to the United States courts, both by the Indian 
tribes and by individual appellants. Decisions of the appellate 
courts, declared under the act to be final, were made in 1897 and 
1898. No subsequent authority was given in the Cherokee, Creek, 
and Seminole Nations to review these decisions, but a provision was 
inserted in the act of Julv 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 641), by which Congress 
approved the Choctaw-Chickasaw ajjreement of 1902, establishing the 
tribunal known as the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Cx)urt. 

By section 31 of the act last referred to the Choctaw and Chick- 
asaw Nations were authorized to file a bill in equity in said court 
seeking annulment and vacation of all decisions rendered by the 
United States courts under said act of June 10, 1896. Authority 
was given to institute a test suit, in which actual notice was tc be 
given to 10 persons admitted to citizenship or enrollment by said 
courts. These persons were to be ** representatives of the entire 
class of persons similarly situated." Two questions were to be 
determined: (1) Should the proceedings in the United States courts 
under the act of June 10, 1896, have been confined to a review of the 
action of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, upon the 
papers and evidence submitted to such commis?5ion, or should it have 
extended to a trial de novo of the question of citizenship? (2) 
Were such proceedings void and of no effect in the absence of notice 
to both of said nations ? 

This section provided further that in the event that the citizen- 
ship judgments obtained under the act of June 10, 1896, should 
be annulled or vacated in the test suit because of either or both of 
the irregularities claimed and insisted upon by said nations, as set 
forth in the two questions stated above, the files, papers, and pro- 
ceedings of any citizenship case in which the judgment or decision 
might be so annulled or vacated should, upon written application 
therefor, made within 90 days thereafter by any party thereto who 
was thus deprived of the favorable judgment, be transferred and 
certified to said citizenship court by the court having custody and 
control of the record in the case, and that upon the filing of such 
record, accompanied by due proof of notice in writing of the 
transfer and certification thereto to a chief executive officer of each 
of said nations, said citizenship case should be docketed in the 
citizenship court and such further proceedings had therein as ouj^t 
to have been had in the court to which the same was taken on appeal 
from the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, and as if no 
judgment or decision had been rendered therein. 

Section 32 of said act of July 1, 1902, also provided that said 
citizenship court should have an appeal and jurisdiction over all 
judgments of the courts in Indian Territory rendered under said 
act of June 10, 1896, admitting persons to citizenship or to enroll- 
ment of either of said nations. This right of appeal was to be exer- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



8 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

cised under the statute hy the said nations jointly or by either of 
them acting separately within six months after the final ratification 
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw agreement of 1902. The court was 
authorized in the exercise of such jurisdiction to consider, review, 
and revise all such judgments both as to findings of fact and con- 
clusions of law, and authority was ^ven to either party to any stlch 
appeal to present such further evidence as might be necessary to 
enable the court to determine the controversy. 

In the test case of J. T. Riddle et al., the citizenship court on 
December 19, 1902, rendered a decision in favor of the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Nations as to both of the questions stated above, 
and set aside and vacated all decisions theretofore rendered by 
United States courts admitting applicants to enrollment. 

Two classes of persons were involved in the Riddle case: (1) 
Applicants who were denied citizenship 'rights by the Commission 
to the Five Civilized Tribes under the act of June 10, 1896, but who 
were, on appeal, adjudged to be entitled to citizenship by the United 
States courts; and (2) those persons who, after being found entitled 
to enrollment by said commission under said act, were afterwards 
successful in having such decisions affirmed by the United States 
courts upon appeal thereto. 

Many persons of the first of these classes transferred their cases 
to tlie Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court in accordance with 
section 31 of the act of July 1, 1902, supra. However, there was 
much difference of opinion as to whether persons of the second 
class were required to transfer their cases to that court. The latter 
claimed that the duty, if anv, of taking an appeal rested upon the 
Indian nations as unsuccessful parties to the original proceedings, 
and that they (the applicants) were not required by law to take 
their cases to the citizenship court. This view was also held by the 
Department of the Interior until some time after the expiration of 
the 90-day period within which transfers might be made. 

During the prosecution of the enrollment work by this depart- 
ment pursuant to the Choctaw and Chickasaw agreement of 1902, 
the question also arose as to whether the citizenship court had juris- 
diction to consider cases where the applicants theretofore had ac- 
quired a tribal status through enrollment or other official recogni- 
tion. This question, it will be observed, was analogous, if not 
identical, witn that which is referred to in a previous connection 
respecting cases involved in proceedings before the Commission to 
the Five Civilized Tribes in the year 1896. 

The leading case decided by the Secretary of the Interior upon the 
jurisdictional question was that of Wiley Adams, decided May 21, 
1903. The decision is reported at page 144 in the book entitled 
*' Laws, Decisions, and Regulations Affecting the Work of the Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes." Jhe report of the Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs of May 11, 1903, on said case appears 
on pages 145-147 of the same book. A copy of this volume is in- 
closed for your convenient reference. 

The statements of fact^ in this case show that Adams was ad- 
mitted to tribal citizenship by a citizenship committee of the Choc- 
taw Nation November 6, 1884, and that, he was thereafter continu- 
ously recognized as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation and permitted 
to vote at their elections. He presented an application for enroll- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 9 

ment to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes under the act of 
June 10, 1896. His application was denied by the commission and 
no api>eal was taken to the courts. Subsequently the commission 
entertained his application for enrollment under the Curtis Act of 
June 28, 1898, and decided that he was entitled to enrollment. The 
decision of the commission concludes as follows: 

It is therefore the opinion of the commission that its action upon the request 
of the applicant for citizenship, under the act of Congress of June 10, 1896, 
was without authority of law, and of no force and effect upon the status of 
this applicant as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and also that Wiley Adams 
is a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and also that Wiley Adams is a citizen of 
the Choctaw Tribe of Indians in Indian Territory, and tliat his application 
therefor should be granted, and it is so ordered. 

The Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs transmitted this case 
May 11, 1903, with a report which reads in part as follows: 

As is suggested by the commission, it had no authority under the law to 
remove his name from the Choctaw tribal rolls, and Its action In that instance 
was a nullity. 

Under the act of June 28, 1898, the Curtis Act, additional powers were 
vested in the commission in that It was authorized to rfmove names from the 
rolls which had been placed there Improperly, but the investigation In this 
case did not disclose any Improper circumstances in connection with the enroll- 
ment of Wiley Adams by the Choctaw tribal authorities. 

The decision of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes in 
this case and the report of the Indian Office thereon were approved 
in said decision May 21, 1903, by Hon. Thos. IJyan, then Acting 
Secretary. 

To complete the history of this case it might be added that Adams's 
name was subsequently placed upon the final rolls approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior ; that his name was later stricken from those 
rolls, and that still later it was restored to the rolls, and that he 
has since been accorded full rights of citizenship. 

Following the decision in the Adams case, decisions were rendered 
by the Secretary of the Interior, going a step further, holding that 
the United States courts, having only an appellate jurisdiction under 
the act of June 10, 1896, were also without jurisdiction over the ap- 
plications of persons having a tribal status, and that consequently 
the citizenship court could not properly entertain such cases. With- 
out discussing the cases in detail, in which the subject was further 
considered, I will merely refer to them by name and indicate the 
pages of the inclosed volume, cited above, where the decisions of the 
department are reported. They are as follow-* : 

Dr. Clay McCoy . 147-153 

Benjamin Vaughan et al S. 160-153 

Loiila West et al 153-157 

Mary Elizabeth Martin 157-165 

In the period between the date of the decision in the Wiley Adams 
case (May 21, 1903) and February 19. 1907, the commission and the 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes heard and adjudicated 
many cases upon their merits, even though adverse decisions had 
theretofore been rendered under the act of June 10, 1896, by the 
United States courts and the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court, 
and the records and action in practically all cases were made to con- 
form to the jurisdictional view of tlie Secretary of the Interior as ex- 
pressed in said decisions. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



10 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 

Such was the condition of affairs February 19, 1907, when the 
opinion of the Attorney General was rendered relating to the cases 
of William C. Thompson, Loula West, and others. 26 Ops., A. G-., 
127-165.) It is not deemed necessary to make a copy of this opinion, 
as the printed volume will afford a more convenient source of refer- 
ence, but the following excerpts indicate the purport thereof: 

Myrtie Randolph and W. J. Thompson were children of a white father by his 
third wife, a white woman, his first and second wives having been OhoctawB. 
Both parents and these children lived In the Choctaw Nation and were recog- 
nized as Choctaw citizens. The children were enrolled by the Choctaw Com- 
mittee on Citizenship in 1892. Their application to the CommlFslon to the Five 
Civilized Tribes for enrolhnent nnder the act of Jime 10, 1S96 (29 Stat., 321, 
339), was denied, which decision was reversed by the United States court In 
the Indian Territory, and its judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court. (174 
TJ. S., 445, 469.) Subsequently, on appeal by the nation under the act of July 
1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641, 646-649), their application was denied by the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Citizenship Court. Held, that the citizenship court has juris- 
diction and that its judgment is final. 

The application for enrollment under the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 339), 
notwithstanding the fact that applicants were already on the rolls, was a waiver 
of the conclusi^•eness of the rolls in tljeir cases, the act providing that the com- 
missioner shall hear and determine the application of all persons who may apply 
to them for citizenship in any of said nations. 

The act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 641). contemplated that the citizenship 
court should have a revisory jurisdiction of all judgments of the United States 
courts in the Indian Territory admitting persons to citizenship on appetil from 
the judgments of the commission, whether the applicants were on the tribal rolle 
or not. 

No authority has been conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior by the 
acts of July 1. 1902. paragraph 30 (32 Stat, 646), and April 26, 1906 (34 Stat, 
137), to review the judgments of the citizenship court 

♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦ 

Ivoula West was admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by the Com- 
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes. The nation appealed to the United States 
courts In the Indian Territory and the judgment was affirmed I^tor, under 
the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641, 647), the case was removed to hte citizen- 
ship court, which denied her application. Held, that the citizenship court had 
jurisdiction of such cases, and Its judgments therein are final. 

William C. Thompson applied to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
for the enrollment of himself, wife, and children. The application was denied 
by the commission, and no appeal was taken therefrom. Claimant relies upon 
the fact that their names api>ear upon the tribal roll prepared pursuant to the 
Choctaw acts of September 18 and October 30, 1896. Held, that the action of 
the coniniisslon, not )i;ivin;; beon appealed from, was fiuMirand that the Choc- 
taw Nation, even If It attempted to do so, had no right thereafter to admit 
them, such enrollment being without authority of law. 

The provision In the act of June 10, 1896 (39 Stat., 339), that **any person 
who shall claim to be entitled to be added to said rolls as a citizen of either of 
said tribes and whose right thereto has either been denied or not acted upon " 
might apply to the legally constituted court or committee of such tribes, with 
right of appeal to the United States court had reference to a previous denial 
or failure of the tribal authorities to act, and not to action or nonaction of the 
commission. 

The Department of the Interior attempted in the time intervening 
between the date of the receipt of said opinion and March 5, 1907, to 
review many cases which had been decided according to the rule in 
the Wiley Adams case and also to decide cases then pending in con- 
formity with the Attorney General's opinion as construed by this 
department. As a result many names were stricken from the ap- 
proved rolls, while many other persons, not yet enrolled, having simi^ 
lar cases, were denied enrollment. 

By a letter of March 4, 1907, addressed to the President, copy here- 
with, the Attorney General made a statement as to the class of cases 

' Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. H 

covered by his opinion of February 19, 1907, but this letter was not 
received in this department until March 6, after the jurisdiction of 
the Secretarv to place nanaes upon the rolls had terminated by express 
provision of law. Especial attention is directed to a paragraph of 
said letter as foUows: 

The persons In whose behalf Messrs. McMurray and Cornish and Senator 
Curtis have Intervened were enrolled as citizens by the Dawes Commission 
under the act of 1896 ; an appeal from this action of the commission was taken 
by the two nations to the United States Courts, and the decision of the Dawes 
Cconmission was there atOrmed. This decree of the United States court was 
annulled as a result of the test case Instituted in the citizenship court, to 
accoEdanee with the treaty of 1902; but the case itself was not then transferred 
to the citizenship court, the claimants being apparently advised that they could 
rely upon the original decision of the Dawes Commission as entitling them to 
citizenship. It is obvious that the two sets of cases are not at all parallel, and 
I folly agree with Mr. Harr and with Senator Curtis th^t the terms of my 
recent opinion do not cover these cases. 

An investigation of the records of the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes has disclosed that there were about 131 of the so- 
called jurisdictional cases decided within the period from Feb- 
ruary 9 to March 4, 1907. These cases include approximately from 
one to three persons each. It is estimated that the whole number of 
cases decided adversely between said dates by the Secretary of the 
Interior was 2,082. The actual number, however, requiring reexami- 
nation will be materially less because (a) many names wnich were 
stricken from the finally approved rolls in supposed compliance with 
said opinions were restored to the rolls later pursuant to the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Garfield, 
Secretary of the Interior, v, Goldsby (211 U. S., 249) ; and {!>) be- 
cause the family ri^ht of the applicants has already been adjudicated 
in connection with other persons whose names are now on the 
approved rolls. This estimate does not include the so-called trans- 
fer casas, affecting persons of mixed Indian and Xegro blood enrolled 
as freedmen, a considerable number of which were adjudicated be- 
tween said dates. Summarizing, the total number of cases falling in 
da^ IV will probably not exceed 1,724. 

In respect of the cases decided adversely in the last few weeks, it 
is urged in behalf of the several tribes that such cases had, as a rule, 
t>een carefully considered by the Commission to the Five Civilized 
Tribes, and that a considerable proportion of them were finally de- 
cided upon precedents found in decisions rendered before the period 
of hasty consideration. On the other hand, it is claimed that the 
decisions of the commission in many instances were rendered upon 
theories which did not obtain when the same cases were decided by 
the Secretary, and therefore that such cases received only such con- 
sideration as could be given them under the pressure of work then 
before the department. It is also claimed in behalf of the tribes 
that they suffered also because of this pressure in that names were 
wrongly placed upon the rolls, and that if mistakes are to be cor- 
rected by now adding names they should also be corrected by striking 
off names erroneously added. 

Class V, — This class embraces the so-called memorandum cases, 
which were refused consideration on the merits because of a pro- 
rision in the act of May 31, 1900 (31 Stat., 221, 236), reading: 

That said commission shall continue to exercise all authority heretofore con- 
ferred upon It by law. But It shall not receive, consider, or make \*^yr^^<Jp 

igi ize y g 



12 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

of any application of any person for enrollment as a member of any tribe Ui 
Indian Territory who has not been a recognized citizen thereof and duly and 
lawfully enrolled or admitted as such, and its refusal of such application shall 
be final when approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

It is not claimed that the action of the department in refusing to 
consider such cases was erroneous, but that the law was unfair and 
unjust, and that in the administration of this law further injustice 
resulted because (1) the tribal rolls were, according to the reports of 
the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, incomplete and other- 
wise defective; (2) the commission did not index and consult all rolls 
in its possession, and (3) certain rolls were not transmitted to the 
commission or its successor until after the time fixed by law for the 
termination of the enrollment work. In disposing of this class of 
cases, the Secretary directed that memoranda be prepared instead of 
the usual formal record, and departmental action was based upon 
lack of jurisdiction without consideration of the merits of the cases. 

The total number of cases of this class where the applicants may 
appear by reason of their dcvscent and other facts to have been prima 
facie entitled to enrollment can be ascertained from the '* census 
cards " in the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, 
and will probably not exceed 140. 

Recapitulating from the information at hand, it has been estimated 
that the approximate number of cases in the several classes men- 
tioned are as follows: 

Class I. Xoncompetent cases (one person to a case) 800 

Class II. Delinquent cases (due to administrative delay) 52 

Class III. Mississippi Choctaw cases (families) 10 

Class IV. Jurisdictional and imperfectly adjudicated cases (averaging 

perhaps three persons to a case) * 1,724 

Class V. Memorandum cases 140 

2,72« 

Deducting 51 cases covered by both classes I and II 2, 676 

As these classes necessarily overlap in a measure, it is probable that 
10 per cent of the cases, and perhaps more, can be conservatively 
charged to duplications. 

3. What will be the necessary time and expense of making an in- 
vestigation ? 

The answer to this depends entirely upon the extent of the investi- 
gation that may be directed by Congress. If it be limited to those 
cases falling in Classes I, II, and III, it could probably be satisfac- 
torily completed in six months after the force is organized and ready 
for work at an expense of not less than $6,000. 

If Class IV is added, the time should be considerably extended or a 
separate force employed, and in either case the cost would be con- 
siderably augmented. The work pertaining to this class could pos- 
sibly be done in six to eight months with a force of 8 to 10 employees, 
and at a cost of approximately $12,000. This is upon tte theory that 
the examination will be limited to the records heretofore made up, 
and that no further testimony will be taken or investigation in the 
field required or additional arguments heard. If the cases are to be 
heard de novo, or if supplemental testimony is to be taken, the mere 
matter of notice so that all interested may be afforded an adequate 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 13 

Opportunity to be heard would involve a period of time that can not 
be estimated with any degree of accuracy. After the testimony is 
taken, time should be allowed claimants and the nations to present 
argument for and against the claims. Certainly this could not be 
b|t)ught within a period of less than one year, and whether it could 
be done within that time would depend upon the number of people 
who could be employed on the work. The cost of such a thorough 
examination as should be made, if this work is to be reopened, is en- 
tirely problematic. It has been estimated by those somewhat familiar 
with the subject at from $15,000 to $25,000. ' If the claim of the tribes 
that any investigation to be made should include names mistakenly 
placed on the rolls is to be given recognition, the work and cost would 
De largely increased. 

If Class V be added, additional testimony will have to be taken, 
because the records have not been made up in all these cases. The 
number of such incomplete cases can not be definitely ascertained 
without an examination of existing records in all this class. To 
properly handle this class will require additional time or additional 
force. The added cost can not be closelv calculated, but it has been 
estimated at from $6,000 to $10,000. 

As intimated before, the work to be done depends so much upon 
the form the legislation shall take that it is impossible to make a 
reliable or satisfactory advance estimate. If the new law shall pre- 
scribe new bases for rights, it is altogether possible that difBcult 
questions of construction will have to be decided before the actual 
work of examination of concrete cases can be begun. It is not im- 
probable that the views of the new examiners as to the proper con- 
struction of existing laws mav be different from those obtaining when 
the cases were previously adjudicated. In either of these contingen- 
cies the parties interested, both claimants and the tribes, should be 
given opportunity to be heard before a conclusion is reached. This 
would consume time and add to the expense. 

4. Whether there Is a vail a hie for the use of the committee a draft of a 
provision relating to this matter prepared in the department. 

A draft of a provision concerning this matter was prepared in the 
department probably about February, 1911, and a copy thereof is 
herewith for your information. This was done in compliance with an 
informal request ttom your committee and for its convenience. This, 
I am told, was not formally adopted by the department nor intended 
to be taken as expressing the views of this department that the enroll- 
ment work should be reopened. The transmission of a copy of this 
informal paper at this time is not to be taken as a recommendation 
by the department that legislation be enacted in that form or at all. 
The purpose of this communication is simply to supply you with 
such information as the files of the department contain on the sub- 
ject. It may not be inappropriate to call your attention to the fact 
that substantially all the information herein has been furnished here- 
tofore, except perhaps that the estimates of the number of cases 
falling within the several classes are now somewhat more definite. 
Very respectfully, 

Samuel Adams, 
First Assistant Secretary. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



14 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

I Transmitted with Department of Interior letter Apr. 22, 1012, to chairman House- 
Committee on Indian Afltelrs.] 

Provided further, Tlij\t the Secretary of the Interior be, nnd he hereby i»# 
given jurisdiction and authority as follows: 

1. To add to the rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes the names of minors living 
March fourth, nineteen hundred and six, either of whose parents is on said rolls, 
or would have been entitled to be enrolled. If living, at the date fixed for 
determining the right to enrollment, and also the names of Indians Incarcerated. 
Insane, or otherwise incompetent, including those who would be in the restricted 
class if enrolled, for whom no application w«s made or proper proof submitted 
within the time limit provided by law, but who were otherwise entitled to en- 
rollment under the laws governing such matters. 

2. To consider and adjudicate all claims for enrollment in any of said tribes 
which were favorably decided by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, 
but which did not reach the Secretary of the Interior In time for consideration 
and decision on or before March fourth, nineteen hundred and seven, adding to 
the rolls of said tribes the names of those he may find entitled to enrollment. 

8. To add to the roll of the Mississippi Choctaws the names of all persons 
identified as Mississippi Choctaws Or*tolier fourth, nineteen hundred and six, 
to March fourth, nineteen hundred and seven, both Inclusive, who have made 
bona fide settlement in the Choctaw-Chickrsaw country or who shall make 

such settlement prior to fourth, nineteen hundred and fallowing 

six months!. 

4. To review and readjudicate. in conformity with the laws governing In such 
matters vm\ upon the records as then made up. all citizenship cnses in said 
tribes decided by the Secretary of the Interior January twelfth, nineteen hun- 
dred and seven, or subsequently thereto, adversely to the claimants, and to add 
to the rolls of said tribe the name of any person he may find entitled to eni'oll- 
ment, excluding, however, those cases involving applications for transfer of 
names from the freedmen*s rolls to the rolls of citizens by blood. 

5. To determine the right to enrollment of persons whose applications were 
denied under the act of May thirty-first, nineteen hundred, because of lack of 
tribal enrollment, who are shown by existing records to be otherwise prima 
facie entitled to enrollment because of Indian blood and residence. 

0. That the jurisdiction and authority hereby conferred upon the Secretary 
of the Interior shall terminate December thirty-first, nineteen hundred and 
eleven, provided that the authority to inscribe the names of those held entitled 
to enrollment upon said final rolls shall extend for thirty days thereafter. 

7. PorsoTiJ! enrolled under the provisions of this law shall share in the dis- 
tribution of the tribal property the same as if they had been enrolled prior to 
March fourth, nineteen hundred and seven, except that they shall be paid, in 
lieu of an allotment of land, a sum of money from the funds of said tribes equal 
to twice the value of the land he would have received, as fixed by the classifica- 
tion of the lands of the .several tribes for the purposes of allotment: Provided, 
That the shr'res in the tribal property of persons enrolled. under this act shall 
nt>r b^ liable for the payment of any debt, obligation, or contract Incurred or 
entered into prior to the segregation thereof from the common tribal property, 
except tli.Mt the Secretary of the Interior may approve payment of a reisonable 
attorney's fee. to be determined by him, for services rendered in securing such 
enrollnient: nnd all money due any minor or any restricted Indian shall be 
paid to or disbursed for the benefit of such minor or restricted Indian under 
the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. 



fVol. 6, p. 1J^3, memorandum copl3s, Indian Territory Division. 1 

February 9. 1907. 
Chief Indian Territory Drv ision : 

In view of the provision in section 2 of the art of April 26, 1906 
(84 Slat., 187), " That the rolls of the tribes affected by this act shall 
\ye fully completed on or before the 4th day of March, 1907, and the 
Secretary of the Interior shall have no jnrisdiction to approve the 
enrollment of any person after said date," you are directed to have 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 15 

prepared in citizenship cases, with as little delay as possible, letters 
affirming the decisions of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
and the commissioner to such tribes, in the absence of an adverse 
recommendation by the Indian Office, when not in conflict with the 
plain provisions of law, accepting the finding of facts of said com- 
mksion or commissioner, and where the question involved in any case 
is not pending before the Assistant Attorney General or the Attor- 
ney General. 

EespectfuUy, E. A. Hitchcock, 

Sea^etary. 

Department of the Interior, 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, 

Mushogee^ Ind, T,^ November 15^ 1907, 
The honorable the Secretary of the Interior. 

Sir: June 28, 1907, former Commissioner Bixby called to the 
attention of the department certain enrollment cases that were 
brought to his attention after March 4, 1907, in which it appeared 
that the applicants were probably entitled to enrollment, but were 
not placed upon the final rolls of the tribes of which they were 
members, and that in view of section 2 of the act of Congress of 
April 26, 1906, there was no existing law under which they could 
obtain relief. 

July 23, 1907 (I. T. 59745-1907), the Acting Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs in reporting in the matter stated: 

It appears from the commissioner's letter that the parties mentioned bj' him 
are entitled to enrollment and that for various reasons their names were not 
placed on the roll. As it appears to he thoroughly established that they are as 
much entitled to enrollment as any of the citizens of the tribes to which they 
belong, and as there is no existing law by which they can be enn>lled, it is 
recommended that the list be preserved and that the Commissioner to the Five 
Clvilizeii Tribes be requested to investigate further similar cases, to the end that 
relief may be afforded to all such persons by a special act of Congress authoriz- 
ing the placing of their names on the rolls of citizens of the nations to which 
they belong. 

This recommendation was approved by the Secretary of the Inte- 
rior July 25, 1907. 

The question of the advisability of requesting congressional action 
with a view to affording relief to certain persons not enrolled as 
members of the Five Civilized Tribes, through fault of their own or 
otherwise, was again di«<*ussed in the Cherokee case of Alta May 
Brassfield. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs on August 21, 1907 
(I. T. 09588-1907), forwarded this office, for report, a letter from 
John Brassfield, and on September 10, 1907 (I. T. 78379-1907), in 
transmitting the report of this office of August 80. 1907, stated: 

In cases such as the Brassfield, the Mitchell Adams and a few others that 
have come to the notice of the ottice, where the pnrtles were not enrolled 
through no fault of their own, but through error ot (Joverinnent officers, 
Congress should be requested to enact lej2:islntlon authorizing their enrollment, 
and their names should be inserted in the law as was done by section of the 
act of June 30, 1002 (32 Stat. 1.., mO), in the cnscs of Ner-wal-lc-pe-se. Mary, 
Walter, and Willie Washington, citizens of the (^reck Nation. 

It is recommended that the office be anthorizcl to advise the Connnissloner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes as herein indicated, and request him to prepare 
a list giving the names of the persons whom his rccor.ls show were legally 
entitled to enrollment and were omitttnl throi^gh ovorsi^rht on the part of the 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



16 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Government, in order that the subject may be presented to Congress with a 
view to protecting their interests. 

This recommendation was approved by the Secretary of the In- 
terior September 11, 1907. 

In accordance with these instructions I have investigated the 
records in the citizenship cases in the different tribes and respectfully 
submit the following cases which I believe come within the purview 
of the department's instructions, to wit : 

CHEROKEES BY BLOOD. 
[Act of July 1. 1902, .32 Stat., 716.1 

Jennie Cloud, Joe Kingfisher, ca.se No. 7713. 

Jennie Cloud, who is a full-blood Cberokee Indian, is a daughter of 
Nelce Crittendon and Ka-lo-iiuskee; ^*ho was born in the Cherolvee Nation 
about 33 years ago, and has continuously resided therein since her birth 
to the present time; her name is identified upon the 1880 Cheroltee tribal 
roll, Goingsuake district, at No. 4r»(). as Sinthy Critdenten, and upon the 
1894 Cherokee pay roll, Goingsuake district, at No. 664, as Jennie 
Kingfisher. 

Joe Kingfisher, bom about 1892, is a son of sjiid Jennie Cloud and one 
Josiah Kingfisher, whose name appears opposite No. 18653 on the approved 
roll of Cherokee citizens, being enrolled as a full blood. Said Joe King- 
fisher resided in the Cherokee Nation continuously from his birth until his 
death, which occurred in 1003 or 1904. The application for the enrollment 
of Jennie Cloud and Joe Kingfisher was made April 15, 1902, but their 
case was, through an oversight, never passed upon. 

Viola Grazier, case No. 4079. 

Viola Grazier was born August 26, 1902, and is a child of Homer M. 
Grazier, whose name appears upon the approved roll of citizens by blood 
of the Cherokee Nation, opposite No. 9841. being enrolled as a three-eighths 
Indian, and one Dora Grazier, a noncitizen of the Cherokee Nation. The 
application for her enrollment was made October 3, 1902, and on February 
20, 1907, the former commissioner rendered his decision ordering her 
enrolled as a citizen by blood of Uie Cherokee Nation. No protest against 
her enrollment was filed by the attorney for the Cherokee Nation, but 
through oversight she was not placed upon a schedule of Cherokee citizens 
and forwarded for departmental ajiproval. 

Maggie Beamer, case No. 93(1.'. 

Application for the enrollment of Maggie Beamer was made June 24, 
1902; she is a full-blood Indian, about 13 or 14 years of age, a daughter 
of Sam Beamer, whose name :<it]:ears opposite No. 1S9G2 upon the approved 
roll of citizens by bUwid of the Clierokee Nation, and one Lydia Beamer, 
nC'C Wesley, a Cherokee, wh(» died al>out 12 years ago. Maggie Beamer Is 
identified upon the 1890 Cherokee tribal roll. Tahlequah district, at No. 
319, and has continuously resided in the Cherokee Nation from the time 
of her birth until the present time. The case of this child was not, 
through inadvertence, passed upon prior to the closing of the Cherokee roll. 

Jim Wolfe, case No. KY.m. 

This applicant. wli<^ is a full-blood Indian, made application for enroll- 
ment November 20, 190i). as a citizen by blood of the Cherokee Nation, his 
age being given at that time as 41 years. June 20. 1901, tlie Commission 
to the Five Civilized Tribes n'fused his application for enrollment in 
accordance with the provisions (»f the Act of May 31, 1900 (31 Stat., 221), 
and on September 21. 1901, said decision was approved by the department. 
On November 27, IHO.'l « I. T. !>., >C04-1903), on request of the commi.ssion, 
the department rescinded its decision and returned the case for read.1udi- 
cation. Further proceedings were had in the case September 21, 1904, and 
October 30, 1905. On February 21. 1907. the commissioner rendered his 
decision ordering Jim Wolfe enn^lled as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation 
of Shawnee blood. The attorney for the Cherokee Nation entered no 
protest against the enrollment of Jim Wolfe, but. through inadvertance, 
his name was not placed upon a schedule of Cherokee citizens and for- 
warded to the department for approval. ^^^,r> 

Digitized by VjOO^ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 17 

Eli Springwateb, case No. Memo. 200. 

Application for the enrollment of this applicant was made August 16, 
1900. Emily A. Springwater. his mother, is a white woman, and alleges 
thatshewasmarrledto Johnson Springwater. the father of Ell Springwater, 
in 1888 or 1889. and that they lived together for about three years. Other 
than her uncorroborated testimony, there is no evidence of the niaiTiage 
of herself and Springwater. but from the information received it appears 
that they lived together for about three yearn; that the child Ell Spring- 
water, was born while they were living together; that he was recognized 
in the community as their child: and also by his putative father, Johnson 
Springwater. The name of Eli Springwater can not be identifiod upon any 
of the tribal rolls of the Cherokee Nation in the possession of this office. 
Johnson Springwater is identified upon the ISSO Cherokee tribal roll, 
Sequoyah district, at No. 1213, and his nnme appears upon the approved 
roll of citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation opposite No. 25726. 

Commissioner Bixby in his letter of June 28, 1907, fully advised 
the department in reference to the above cases and as to the probable 
cause of their being overlooked. 

Alta May Bbassfield, case No. 6415. 

Alta May Brassfleld was born June 16. 1902, and is a daughter of John 
Brassfleld, whose name appears opposite No. 15360 uiwn the approved roll of 
citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation, and his wife, Mary Brassfield, a 
noncitizen white woman. The first application made to the Commission to 
the -Five Civilized Tribes was received September 1, 1904, too late, under 
the provisions of section 30 of the act of July 1. 1902, to be considered. The 
act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 137), extended the time for the reception 
of applications for enrollment to December 1, 1905, but the application for 
the enrollment of Alta May Brassfield, which was retained in the files of 
the commission, was nor discovered after the passage of the act of April 
26 until subsequent to March 4, 1907, and her case was not passed upon 
prior to the closing of the tribal rolls on March 4, 1907. Said child is 
living at the present time. 

CHEROKEE FREEDMEN NEW BORN. 
I Act of Apr. 26, 1906, 34 Stat., 137.]/ 

Lucy Scott, new bom, case No. 542. 

Application was received May 31. 1906, for the enrollment, under the act 
of April 26. 1906, of Lucy Scott, born September 21, 1903, a child of Jim 
Scott, a noncitizen of the Cherokee Nation, and Mary Scott, whose name 
appears upon the approved roll of Cherokee freedmen opposite No. 3722. 
This child was living March 4, 1906. When this application was first re- 
ceived, Lucy Scott was listed for enrollment on Cherokee new-born card No. 
2757, instead of a Cherokee freedmen new-bom card, it being recited In the 
application for the child's enrollment tha< its mother, Mary Scott, was "a 
citizen by birth of the Cherokee Nation.'* On February 7, 1907, Commis- 
sioner Bixby ordered the transfer of the name of Lucy Scott from the 
Cherokee new-born case to a Cherokee freedmen new-bom case, it being 
found thnt the mother was enrolled as a Cherokee freedmen. It appears 
that no further action was taken looking toward the enrollment of Lucy 
Scot! until March 4. 1907, when Mr. Bixby wired the department as follows: 

" From evidence now in my oflBce it appears that minor Cherokee freed- 
men applicant Lucy Scott is a minor child of Mary Scott, Cherokee freed- 
men roll number thirty-seven twenty-two, was born September twenty-one, 
nineteen hundred three, living March four, nineteen hundred six. made ap- 
plication within time limited by act April twenty-six, nineteen hundred six, 
and has been listed on card number five forty-two. I recommend that said 
applicant, Lucy Scott, be placed on minor Cherokee freedmen roll and 
approved." 

Fearing that the telegram would reach the department too late, the co!n- 
raissioner wired his employee then in Washington, calling his attention 
to the telegram, which was quoted him. in order to secure, if possible, the 
enrollment of this child. March S, 1907 (I. T. D. 8200-1907), the Acting 
Secretary of the Interior notified the commissioner that said telegram was 
not received in the Secretary's office until March 5, 1907, and that no 
further action could be taken. 

QQ2S2 13 2 Digitized by V^jOOQlC 



18 * FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

CBEEKS BY BLOOD. 

TAct of Mar. 1, 1901. 31 Stat., 861, and June 30, 1902, 32 Stat, 500.] 

Chimhokeb MUI.LY, MiTCHELY MuLLY, Barney Mully, Simon Mully, case 
No. 1-3172. 

April 26, 1907, Chimhoker Mully appeared before the Commissioner to 
the Five Civilized Tribes and gave testimony in connection with the right 
to enrollment as citizens by blood of the Creek Nation of herself and chil- 
dren, Mitchely, Barney, and Simon Mully, all full-blood Creek Indians. It 
developed that Chimhoker Mully was identified upon the 1895 Creek pay 
roll, Ketchapataka Town, as Chimhoka, but that her enrollment upon said 
roll had previously been accepted, through error, as that of one Wattey 
Yahola, whose name appears upon the approved roll of Creek Indians op- 
posite No. 2416. It was also found that her children above named, who 
are also identified on said roll, were listed for enrollment by the Commis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes on May 23, 1901, as Mitchell, Barney, and 
Simon Wiker, and that on February 20, 1907, the commissioner dismissed 
the application for their enrollment, no information having been received 
to show whether or not they were living and entitled to enrollment on 
April 1, 1899. The names of these persons also appear upon the 1890 
authenticated roll of citizens by blood of the Creek Nation, on page 133, 
Ketchapataka Town, as Chimarhokee, Majalla, Parma, and Sarma. The 
evidence shows that these people have lived continuously all of their lives 
in the Cherokee Nation (among a band of Creek Indians who settled in the 
Cherokee Nation about the time of the outbreak of the Civil War) and 
that they have never been enrolled or recognized as citizens of any tribe of 
Indians other than the Creek. 

lAct of Apr. 26, 1906. 34 Stat., 137.] 

Sallie Foster, Creek NB.. No. 370. 

June 19. 1906, application was made to the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of Sallie Foster, born January 17, 1905, 
as a citizen by blood of the Creek Nation under the act of April 26, 1906. 
Said Sallie Foster is a child of Noah Foster, whose name was identified 
'upon the approved roll of Creek Indians opi)osite No. 477, and Jennatta 
Foster. February 27, 1907, the commissioner rendered his decision, deny- 
ing the application for the enrollment of said child for the reason that 
sufficient information was not secured to determine whether or not said 
Jennatta Foster was a Creek citizen or whether or not she and Noah 
Foster were married. Said decision was on that date forwarded to the 
department. March 4, 1907. the parents of this child appeared before the 
commissioner and gave testimony in the matter of its enrollment, from 
which it was found that the child's mother is enrolled uj)on the approved 
roll of Creek citizens opposite No. 3907 as Jenette Johnson, and on that 
day the commissioner wired the department as follows : 

*' Referring to Creok new born cnse on Sallie Foster, transmitted on 
February twenty-seven, nineteen hundred seven, together with decision 
' denying for insufficient evidence, the parents of said child have this evening 
appeared, and from their testimony mother is identified as Jennette John- 
son, opi>osite Creek Indian roll No. thirty-nine hundred seven. I therefore 
recommend that name of said Sallie Foster be this day placed upon Creek 
new-born schedule nnd ai>i)roved. Child one year old. Sex. female: blood, 
full ; card No. three hundred seventy." 

Fearing that the telegram would reach the department too late, the 
commissioner wired his employee then in Washington, calling his attention 
to the telegram, Which was quoted him, in order to secure, if possible, the 
enrollment of this child. The telegram probably not having reached the 
department until after March 4. 1907, the department on that date (I. T. D., 
7830-1907) affirmed the commissioner's decision. 

Robert Bullocks, Creek freedmen neAv born. 

The mother of Robert Bullocks is Serena Bullocks, who. with her other 
children, Bessie Harris. Minnie Vincent, and Lou Willie Bullocks, were 
first enrolled as Chickasjiw freedmen, opposite Nos. 1693, 1694, 1695, and 
1700 respectively, upon a schedule of Chickasaw freedmen approved by the 
department Dei^miber 12, 1902. The name of Robert Bullocks appears 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 1* 

«pon a schedule of Chickasaw freedmea approved by the departoent 
October 15. 1803, opposite Xo. 4318. Serena B«»^« *'«^'"S *'^^„^? 
have herself and children enrolled as Creek fr€|dmen CMnml^ner 
Blxby transmitted to the department on October 28 1905. the r«»rd of 
nroc^dlnes had in the matter of their application for enro'lment as 
^^e^rfr^men. and expressing the opinion that t/^YtThetr enroflm^t^ 
to enrollment as Creek freedmen, recommended tl»«t t^^'^,^*"'?"^^ wis 
Chlckasiiw freedmen be canceled. «nd ^tatf^ /^at ^^^en such action was 
taken "a decision enrolling them as Creek ;'??f«»«°„^"' ^^Xorttv of 
He also stated that there was. at the time of his report, no aut^oiity oi 
law f^ the ^rollment of the minor child, Robert Bu locks as a citizen 
of the Creek Nation, and recommended that his enronment at No. «18 
uiK)n the final roll of Chickasaw ^eedmen be pern.ltted to s and. For 
wardlne the report to the department on September 14. I'JOb (Land. s»*^i 
S tbe CommVssionor of Indian Affairs concurred in tberecommenda^ 

s?4^rrri=rl.ser?h^: ^e^.r^^^^^^^^ 

:o-n;;=.er.fJarfor rd^^lL^re^^^^^^^^^^ l^lj= «- --ed 

"^'K ^m^RS Bullocks was living March 4. If06, then he isj^^^^^ 
son entitled to make application for enrolment "n* «f *^^,,n^*^ Huon 
«ilH action (2 of act of Apr. 26. 1906), ami in my opinion his "11'''^"""° 
mlde^u^st 2^ rW2 should be C9tfsidered as a continuing aPpUcatton 
?^utrltg^ction thereon in thej^of said section 2 of the act of April 

^••<lTave* therefore notlflea^e mother of «aid Robert Bullock^ who Is 
a minor, that if she deslpg^that said Robert B"^^,^^? *?„^.,^^'^i^f f "that 
Creek fi^eedmnn. It isjwf^eratlve that she ^mediately fiunlsh Pwof^^t 

contalniiis^e name of Robert «""^,^, , _^ ^^(1 he Is not enrolled as a 

™afy 21, 1907 (Land- »^J?f 1;*^SS? a T D., 4732-1907), the depart- 
Kinlssioner, and on Februay^, 1907 (L 1.^^, ^^^^^ ^H ,^ 

»ut approval the enronmeut^^^^ '^'•''"ted authority 

Jiucent, and I^". ^""^,^",' „„f,,!! fronj the roll of Chickasaw freedmen. 
keinrerS^lpo'lf thr^"nT/ro7Jf Ireek fre«lmen opposite Nos. 

■ ^^ro*^^yr?-ted by Serena -^^^^^J^^YJ^X^^^^ 
Mary Bullocks. February 9. ^^^'^.^'^iX'^'on March 4. 1906. These af- 
was born September l'->- ^^^i »'"!_^"f8;,one^^ too late to report the case to 
fldavlts apparently reached th«<^,™orthi8 child as a Creek freedman, 
the department and ««^"ff ^"""iXn from the Chickasaw freedmen roll, 
new bom, and have his n^S^^^^pi^^Jn "f the Creek Nation proper au- 
Before this child is enrolled as a dt^^en or me ^^ ^^ ^^^g 

thorlty should be sec-ured for tl^ Smen No application for the selec- 
rnTrairmlnf o?rdirthJ^^-taw or Chicka«.w Nation for said 
Robert Bullocks has been made. 

MISSISSIPPI CHOCTAWS. 

,^,„ ., «., i.. .»... " ««■■ •»• - ■"" ■• ""*- " ""■ ""■' 



20 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

1004, the Commissiou to the Five Civilized Tribes denied the identifica- 
tion as full-blood Mississippi Cboctaws of the above-named cliildren, and 
said decision was approved by the department December 13, 1904 (I. T. D., 
12338-1904). 

January 12, 1907 (I. T. D.. 82-1907), the department ordered a rehearbig 
in the matter of the application of said Maggie Nickey, and on March 
4, 1907, Commissioner Bixby wired the departmait as follows : 

" Referring to departmental letter of January twelfth, nineteen seyen 
(I. T. D., eighty-two-nineteen seven), ordering rehearing in application of 
Maggie Nickey. now Maggie John, for identification as Mississippi Choctaw, 
8uffi<*ient evidence has been received by me to-day to identify this applicant 
as full-blood Mississippi Choctaw, and such action has accordingly been 
taken on this date by me. Sufficient evidence is also on file with this 
oflSce showing bona fide settlement within Choctaw-Chickasaw country. 
Recommend that her name be placed on schedule of identified Mississippi- 
Choctnws, anil also on final roll of Mississippi Choctaws, and approved by 
you to-day. Maggie Nickey is twenty years old, removed to Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country In February, nineteen hundred three, and submitted 
proof of settlement on February fifth, nineteen seven. Her name appears 
on Mississippi Choctaw card number nine hundred seventeen." 

March 13, 1907 (I. T. D., 8210-1907), the department advised the com- 
missioner that as the telegram was not received until March 5, 1907. " It is 
not considered that the department has now the authority to place said 
Maggie Nickey. or Mnggie John, upon the roll of Mississippi Choctaws." 

On March 4, 1907, the commlssliw^er rendered his decision refusing the 
application of Lizzie Nickey for IdentTflcatlon, she having died too soon to 
be entitled to such Identification, and gral^ted the application for the idem- 
tificatlon of said Maggie. Billy, 8am. Bet^le Russell, and Mollle Mass 
Nickey as full-blood Mississippi Choctaws. The commissioner advised the 
department of this action on March 6, 1907, ano^ated that — 

** Considering, how^ever, the fact that but a few^-J^urs remained before 
the closing of the rolls of citizenship, no action was tfN^n as to the notifi- 
cation of said parties as to their Identification, for the ro?^son that the said 
Billy and Sam Nickey are residents of Paulding, Mlss.\Bettle Russell 
Nickey of Mosell, Miss., and Mollle Mass Nickey of Sylvardna, Miss., and 
it would have been Impossible for them to have removed t(9 and settled 
within the Choctaw-Chickasaw country and submitted proof\thereof, as 
required by section 41 of the act of Congress approved July l\ 1902 (32 
Stats., 641), within time for their enrollment to have been appfoved by 
you on March 4, 1907." 

March 16, 1907 (I. T. D., 8510-1907), the department. In replyVto the 
commissioner's letter, stated that It had no authority to further \ct in 
the case. 

I believe that authority should be granted for the placing of the nan^of 
Maggie Nickey upon the final roll of Mississippi Choctaws, and that upiPn 
her compliance with the law a final allotment of land be given her. As \o 
the other applicants first named I belleAe that a reasonable time, say sii"; 
months, should be given them within which to establish a bona fide resl-' 
dence In the Choctaw-Chickasaw country, and that upon the proof of such \ 
settlement they be enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws, and upon their 
compliance with the law as relates to Mississippi Choctaws they be given 
final allotments of land In the Choctaw-Chickasaw country. 

Clemooene Fabve and Elizabeth Farve. ' 

On February 27. 1907 (I. T. D., 4712. 4764, 4770, 5186. 5238, 5432-1907, 
1806-1906. 4224-1907). the depnrtment reversed the decisions of the com- 
mission and the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, dated March 
30, 1904, and December 31. 1906, respectively, rejecting the applications of 
Clemogene and Elizabeth Farve, among others, for Identification as Ml8Sls< 
sippi Choctaws, and ordered said applicants Identified as such. In accord- 
ance with said decision the commissioner, on March 2, 1907, rendered hiss 
decision identifying these applicants as full-blood Mississippi Choctaws. 
Said applicants were notified on March 2, 1907, of their identification as 
Mississippi Choctaws and advised of what action was necessary on their 
part to protect their rights. It Is apparent that said applicants did not 
have time to remove to and make settlement in the Choctaw-Chickasa^ 
country and to make proof of such settlement within time to have their 
enrollment approved by March 4, 1907. 



Digitized by 



Google 



^ 



i 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 21 

Saixie Chablas, Minnie Ghaslas, Bettie Charlas, Louisa Charlas, James 
Ohablajb. 

On February, 20, 1907 (I. T. D., 3954-1907), the department, in accord- 
ance with an approved opinion of the Assistant Attorney General dated 
February 16, 1907, directed the commissioner to Identify the above-named 
applicants as Mississippi Choctaw Indians. The commissioner's decision, 
in conformity with said direction, was rendered Februaty 23, 1907. These 
applicants live in Leake County, Miss., and they did not have sufficient 
time after their identification within which to remove to and settle in the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw country and make proof of such settlement in time 
to secure their enrollment by March 4, 1907. 

CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW CITIZENS. 
[Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 641.] 

Mabt Kino, Choctaw by blood. 

Application was received by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
on December 29, 1902, for the enrollment of Mary King, bom September 
17, 1902. and living September 25, 1902, who is a child of Jesse King, 
whose name appears upon the approved roll of Choctaw citizens opposite 
No. 10778, and Alice King, n^ Nicholas, whose name appears opposite 
Choctaw roll No. 9837. This application was received too late under the 
act of July 1, 1902, for the child to have been enrolled when the application 
for it was received. 

Bonis Shields, Babney Shields, Chlckasaws by blood. 

Applications for the enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw 
Nation were received by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes on 
December 31, 1903, for Ecius Shields, bom January 10, 1900, and on Octo- 
ber 12, 1904, for Bamey Shields, born October 1. 1901. These applicants 
are the children of Simon and Mandy Shield (Shields), whose names 
appear opposite Nos. 637 and 252, respectively, upon the approved roll of 
citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, and were living September 26, 
1902. 

Gilbert McKinney, Choctaw freedman. 

Application was received on March 10. 1903, for the enrollment of this 
applicant as a Choctaw freedman. He was born September 2. 1900, and 
was living September 25, 1902, and is the child of Boling McKinney, whose 
name appears opposite No. 5536 upon the approved roll of Choctaw f reed- 
men. The enrollment of Boling McKinney with his other four minor chil- 
dren was approved by the department March 4, 1907, but the applicant, 
Gilbert McKinney, whose case was embraced in that of his father and 
sisters, was not enrolled. The commissioner advised the department In 
reference to this case in his letter of June 28. 1907, herein above referred to. 

liEHA DuNPORD, Choctaw freedman. 

Application was received December 26, 1002. for the enrollment of Lena 
Dunford, bom December 10, 1895, and who was living September 25, 1902, 
as a Cboctaw freedman. Lena Dunford Is a child of Terry Dunford, whose 
name appears opposite No. 3405 upon the approved roll of Choctaw f reed- 
men, and Louisa Dunford, n(*e Illcks, to whom Terry Dunford was married 
about 1891 or 1892. 

E^ELLA Chester, Choctaw freedman. 

December 26, 1902, there was recelvetl an a|)pllcation for the enrollment 
of Delia Chester as a Choctaw freedman. Said Delia Chester was born 
May 1, 1902; was living September 25, 1902; and is a child of Hester 
Chester, whose name appears opposite No. 872 upon the approved roll of 
Choctaw freedmen. 

Martha Ann Owens, Henry Owens, Choctaw freedmen. 

Applications were ret'eivetl December 29. 1002, by the Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes for the enrol hiient of Martha Ann Owens, born 
November 18. 1899. and Henry Owens, born January 2G. 1002, and who" 
were living September 25. 1902. Tlie^e a[»]>Hf*ants are the minor children 
of Tom and Charlotte Owens, whose names appear opiwsite Nos. 2779 
alld>^80, respectively, upon the approved roll of Choctaw free<lmen. 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



82 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Sbphus Liggins, Robebta Ljogins, Choctaw freedmen. 

Applications for the enrollment of these children appear to have been 
received at the post office in Muskogee, Ind. T., on December 25, 1902, and 
at the office of the Commission to the Five Civilized 1?ribes on December 
26, 1902. There is, however, a note placed upon the applications for their 
enrol hnent to the effect that they were ** received December 25, 1902," but 
the question as to whether or not they were received within the time 
limited by the Jict of July 1, 1002, was never determined by the commission. 
They are the minor children of Ella Butler, whose name appears opposite 
No. 727 upon the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen ; they were born July 
12, 1900, and April 26, 1902, respectively, and were living September 25, 
1902. 

The applications of the above-named applicants, except that of 
Caroline Cole, for enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw and Chicka- 
saw Nations appear to have been received too late, under the act 
of July 1, 1902, to entitle them to enrollment under said act as citi- 
zens of said nations. The applications were retained in the posses- 
sion of the commission, but they appear to have never received 
consideration, except the case of Gilbert McKinney, after the pas- 
sage of the act of April 26, 1906, extending the time for the recep- 
tion of applications for enrollment to December 1, 1905, or to have 
been discovered between April 26, 1906, and March 4, 1907. 

CHOCTAW FREEDMEN NEW BORN. 
[Act of April 26: 1906, 34 Stat., 137.] 

Si Johnson, Charley Johnson. 

Applications for the enrollment of these applicants appear to have been 
filed with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 5, 1906 ; 
they were born Maroli 5, ir)04, and May 2. 11)05, respectively, were living 
March 4. IIHm;. ixud are children of Martin Johnson, whose name appears 
opposite No. 784 upon the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen, and his wife, 
Mary Jolnison, a noncitizen of said nation. The commissioner, on March 
4, 1907, received sufficient information to show that these children were 
entitled to enrollment as minor Choctaw freedmen, and on that day tele- 
graphed the department and recommended that their names be placetl upon 
the roll. The telegram appears to have been received on March 5, 1907, too 
late for said children to be enrolled. 

Emerson James. 

The application for the enrollment of this applicant api)ears to have been 
filed with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 5, 1906. 
l^nierson .jMnes was imrii April 1. 1JX)5, was living March 4. 190(5, and is 
a minor child of .Jim and Molly James, whose names appear opposite Nos. 
8444 and 3451, respectively, upon the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen. 
Sufficient information to show that this child was entitled to enrollment 
was not received until March 4, 1907, and on that day the commissioner 
telegraphed tlie (lei)artnient and recommended that Siiid child be placed 
upon the final roll of minor Choctaw freedmen. Said telegram appears 
to have not been received until March 5, 1907, too late for said child to b^e 
enrolled. 

Carl Harrison, Brillie EL^rrison. 

It appears that applications were filed with the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes on March 5, 1906, for the enrollment of Carl and Brillie 
Harrison. They are tbe children of Brighani Y. and Mary Harrison, whose 
names appear opposite Nos. 1953 and 3489, respectively, upon the approved 
roll of Choctaw freedmen. They are minors, aged about 4 and 3 years, re- 
spectively, and were livine: March 4. IIKX;. Sufficient information was not 
obtained until March 4, 1907, to determine the right of these children to 
enrollment, ami on that day (^)mmissioiier Bixby wired the department, 
and recommended that their names be placed upon the approved roll of 
minor Choctaw freedmen, but the telegram appears to have not i)e«n 
received until March 5, 1907, too late for said children to be eni^ffed 



Digitized by V^OOQl€ 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 23 

Ida ButD. 

Application for the enrollment of this applicant seems to have been tiled 
with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 5, 1006. Ida 
Bird was bom about June 15, 1902, wns living March 4, lOOii, and is tlje 
child of Sophhia Hall, whose name appears opposite No. 834 upon the 
approved roll of Choctaw freedmen. Information from which to determine 
the child's right to enrollment appears not to have been received until 
March 4, 1907, when the commissioner telegraphed the department and 
recommended that the name of said child be placed upon the approved roll 
of minor Choctaw freedmen. Said telegram appears to have not been 
received until March o, 1907, too late for said child to be enrolled. 

E^TOBiA Hall. 

Application for the enrollment of this applicant seems to have been tiled 
with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tril>es on March 5, 1906. 
EstorlaHlall was born ^lay 2, 1900, was living March 4, 1906. and is a 
minor child of Thomas Hall and'Malinda Hall (enrolled as Mallnda 
Jones), whose names appear opposite Xos. 58<S0 and 819, respectively, upon 
tJie approved roll of Choctaw freedmen. Information from which to deter- 
mine the child's right to enrollment appejirs not to have been re^i-eived by 
*the commissioner until March 4, 1907, when Mr. Bixby telegraphed the 
department and recommended that the nsime of said child be placed upon 
the approved roll of minor Choctaw freedmen. The telegram appears to 
have not been received until March 5, 1907, too late for said child to be 
enrolled. 

Akdy Bdtleb, Gboroan Butler. 

The application for the enrollment of these ai>j)llcauls under the pro- 
visions of the act of April 20, IIMHJ, was receivetl July 25, IJKXi, and they 
were listed for enrollment on Chickasaw freedmen new born card No. 400, 
the application reciting that the same was made for the enrollment of the 
children as "freedmen of the Chickasaw Nation." Februarj- 20, 1907, the 
commissioner dismissed the application for their enrollment as Chickasaw 
freedmen in accordance with the ai)proved opinion of the Assistant Attor- 
ney General for the Interior Dcimrtment dated November 15, liMXJ. holding 
that children of Chickasaw freedmen were not entitled to enrollment imder 
the i>rovislon8 of the act of April 26, 1900. 

In the caption of the application for the enrollment of these children it 
is recited that their father is a freedman of the Choctaw Nation, but In the 
affidavit of the mother as to the children's birth it is stated th^t their 
father Is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Andy and Georgan Butler 
were bom October 17. 1902, and August 7, 1905, resiiectlvely, and are chil- 
dren of Charley Butler and Carrie Butler, whose name ai)i>ears opposite 
Xo. 1710 upon the api>roved roll of Chickasaw freeilmen. Subsecpient to 
March 4. 1900, it was discovore<l that said Charley Butler is a duly en- 
rolled Choctaw freedman, his name appearing opiH)site No. 2420 upon the 
approvetl roll of such citizens. Evidence of marriage on file with this 
office shows the lawful marriage of the parents of these children on April 
19, 1900. The children were living on March 4, 1900, and were lawfully 
entitled to eurolhnent as Choctaw freedmen on March 4, 1907. 

Hattie Bubrjs. Isaac Burrts, John Burris. 

March 4. 1907, Commissioner Bixby nndercd l.is decision granting the 
application for the enrollment as minor Choctaw freedmen under the act of 
April 26, 1906, as amended by the act of June 21. 1906 C^ Stat.. 325), of 
Hattie. Isaac, and John Burris. On that day the commissioner telegraphed 
the department of his action and recommended that their names be placed 
upon a schedule of minor Choctaw freedmen and approved by the depart- 
ment. On that day he also addressed a letter to the department confirm- 
ing the telegram and transmitting the record of proceedings in the case. 
March 9, 1907 (I. T. D., 8206-1907. the department advised the commis- 
sioner that his telegram was not delivered until March 5, 1007, and no 
further action could be taken In the case. 

These children were born: Hattie. April 2K, 1901; Isaac. December 5, 
1902; and John Burris, January 29, 1904 — are the legitimate children of 
Turner Burris, whose name appears opposite No. 4870 upon the approved 
roll of Choctaw freedmen, and Etta Burris, a noncitizen. and were living 
March 4, 1906. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



24 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 

There is also called to the attention of the department, for such 
action as it desires to take, the Mississippi Choctaw case of Mitchell 
C. Adams, referred to in the Indian Office letter of September 10, 
1907, special reference being made to his application for the. identifi- 
cation of his minor children. 

January 18, 1906 (I. T. D., 1312, 18094-1905), the department 
approved the decision of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
dated January 19, 1905, denying the application of Mitchell C. 
Adams for the enrollment of himself and minor children, Lillie M., 
Nora M., and Mitchell C. Adams, jr., as citizens by blood, and for the 
enrollment of his wife, Nannie C. Adams, as a citizen by intermar- 
riage, of the Choctaw Nation. On March 3, 1907, Cqmmissioner 
Bixby. having received a telegram dated March 2, 1907, irom A. F. 
McGarr, who was an employee of the commissioner then stationed in 
Washington, stating that the department had directed the identifica- 
tion of Mitchell C. Adams. Lillie M. Adams, Nora M. Adams, and 
William C. Adams (Mitchell C. Adams, jr., died in 1898 or 1899), as 
Mississippi Choctaws, rendered his decision identifying them and 
on that day wired said employee of his compliance with the depart- 
ment's directions, and stated that as the records did not show that 
said persons had ever removed to and settled within the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country, no action would be taken other than their identi- 
fication. Subsequent to the rendition of said decision the commis- 
sioner received the department's decision in the case dated March 2, 
1907 (I. T. D., 5748-1907), wherein the decision of the commission* 
of January 19, 1905, adverse to the applicants, was reversed except 
as to said Nannie C. Adams. This action was taken in accordance 
with the approved opinions of the Assistant Attorney General of 
February 20, 1907, and February 28, 1907. Said Mitchell C. Adams 
was ord'ei'ed identified as a full-blood Mississippi Choctaw Indian, 
and in connection witli the identification of Adams's children the 
department states that: 

In the concluding paragraph of the above-cited opinion recommendation Is 
made that no action should be taken at this time looking to the enrollment of 
Adanis*M family. This re(M>mmendation is ai>proved only to the extent that they 
should not now be finally enrolled as citizens. 

In accordance with the approved opinion of the Assistant Attorney General 
of February 10, 1007, in the case of the infant children of Nicholas Charlas 
et al., based on section 2 of the act of April 26. 1906 (34 Stat.. 137). the children 
of Mitchell C. Adams are entitled to identification as Mississippi Clioctaws if 
said children were minors living on March 4, 1906. 

It api>ears that when the record was made up Lillie M., Nora M.. and William 
C. Adams were the livihg minor children of Mitchell C. Adams, and that 
Mitchell C. Adams, jr.. has since died. 

Accoi-dingly you are also directed to identify Lillie M., Nora M.. and William 
<\ Adams as Mississippi Choctaws, following said opinion in the Charlas case. 

Mitchell C. Adams resides at Bliiefield, W. Va., and it would have 
been impossible for him to have removed to and settled within the 
Cho<;taw-Chickasaw country and submitted proof of such settlement 
within time for his enrollment to have been approved by the depart- 
ment on March 4, 1907. 

The children of Mitchell C. Adams, being of the mixed blood, and 
no attempt being made to prove that they are the descendants of a 
beneficiary under the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1880, were 
not entitled to identification as Mississippi Choctaw Indians und«r 
the act of July 1. 190*2. It i-^ not clear as to the right of these chil- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



PIVB CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 25 

dren under the act of April 26, 1906, considering their case in the 
light of the department's decisions in the Nicholas Charlas et al. case 
above referred to, and its decision of May 25, 1906 (I. T. D. 5066, 
17858-1905, 9022-1906), in the Willis Willis case. Had Mitchell 
C. Adams, after his identification as a Mississippi Choctaw Indian, 
made proof of settlement within the Choctaw-Chickasaw country 
and been duly enrolled as a Mississippi Choctaw, and his enrollment 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior, his said children would 
have been entitled to enrollment under the act of April 26, 1906, as 
amended by the act of June 21, 1906, as the minor children of a duly 
enrolled Mississippi Choctaw Indian, provided they were minors 
living March 4, 1906. 

The commissioner's decision in this ca^^e of March 3, 1907, is in- 
closed; the record in the case was transmitted to the department 
October 21, 1905. 

The records of proceedings in a number of the above cases have 
been heretofore forwarded, and, with the date of the letter of trans- 
mittal, are as follows : 

Sallie Foster, Creek new born, February 27, 1907. 

Clomosene Farve et al., Mississippi (^hoctaws (in consolidated case of Nancy 
Agrloff et al., M. C. R. 2370), December 21, 1906. 

Gilbert McKinney, Clioctaw freednian Cm case of Boling McKinney et al.), 
February 26, 1907. • 

Hattie Burris et al., Choctaw freednieu new born, March 4, 1907. 

Mitchell C. Adams et ;il., Mississippi Choctaw, October 21, 1905. 

The records in the other cases above referred to are transmitted 
herewith. 

EespectfuUy, J. G. Wright, Commissioner, 



Department of the Interior, 

Washington^ July 17^ 1912. 
Hon. John H. Stephens, 

Chmrman Corrymittee on Indian Aifairs^ 

Hovse of Representatives, 

Sir: By your reference I am in receipt of a copy of H. R. 22334, 
entitled "A bill providing for the final disposition of the affairs of 
the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes," with request for 
report thereon. 

Sections 1 and 2 of the bill relate to the subject of enrollment of 
certain classes of persons whose names were omitted from the rolls 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior on or before March 4. 1907. 
The first of these classes embraces the so-called list of 52, which was 
a list prepared in the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes and transmitted to the department by letter of November 15, 
1907, copy of which was forwarded to the committees of Congress by 
Secretary Ballinger February 12, 1910. 

The second of these classes includes the so-called Pollock list, which 
was transmitted to your committee with my letter of February 19, 
1912, wherein I advised you that the persons included in said list 
apparently have qualifications which entitlie them to enrollment in 
one or another of the Five Civilized Tribes, but whose names do not 
appear upon the final rolls. 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



26 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Both of these lists are made up of the names of persons who have 
a strong claim of right to enrollment. In this connection, permit ni^ 
to refer to my report of April 22, 1912, relating to the general sub- 
ject of enrollment in the Five Civilized Tribes. Therein I referred 
to five classes of persons and reported specifically as to each class. 
Classes I and II referred to in said report include, together with other 
names, the two classes mentioned above, for the adjudication of 
whose rights provision is made in said bill. 

The third class mentioned in the bill includes " all persons whoa* 
enrollment on the final approved rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes 
was directed by the Secretary of the Interior within six months prior 
to March 4, 1907, but whose names do not appear on said final ap- 
proved rolls, but who had no hearing or opportunity to be heard to 
show that said final order or decision in their favor should not he 
ignored or annulled/' It is presumed that the class last referred to 
was intended to include those persons who claim that injustice was 
done them during the last few weeks preceding the close of the en- 
rollment work by reason of the hurry incident to that period and the 
application to their cases of certain opinions rendered by the Attor- 
ney General. 

I am advised, however, that the bill as drafted might not include 
more than one family, or at most t\yo or three families, who claim 
to have lost their rights for the reasons stated. 

Ill this connection I desire to refer you further to my said report of 
April 22, 1912. Class IV^ mentioned on page 6 of that report, deals 
at length with this class of persons. In the pages that follow I ex- 
plained the origin of the so-called " jurisdictional cases," and showed 
that there were about 131 cases of that class decided within the 
period from February 9 to March 4, 1907. These cases, together 
with others where the basis of complaint was mainly the hurry ami 
confusion incident to that period, included approximately 1,724. 

Reference is made in the latter part of section 1 of the bill to Mis- 
sissippi Choctaw Indians, but I am advised that the measure ^^ 
drafted would probably not include any such Indians, or at most only 
a limited number of them. The difficulty in their cases was not that 
decisions had been rendered in their favor by the department and 
afterwards rescinded without notice, but that after having been de- 
cided by the Secretary to be entitled to identification as Mississippi 
Choctaws, they were not afforded the usual length of time for re- 
moval to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country. This class of persons is 
also dealt with in my said report of April 22, 1912, as '' Class III." 
The discussion concerning them begins at page 5 of said report. The 
class there referred to included approximately 10 families who were 
actually found to be entitled to identification as Mississippi Choctaws. 
That report did not deal at length with the subject of the claims of 
Mississippi Choctaws, but in a subsequent report dated July 2, 1912, 
relating to H. R. 19213, the history of the Mississippi Choctaw claims 
was fully stated and the most meritorious classes pointed out. 

Having set forth my views at length and given all the information 
available in said reports of April 22 and July 2, I deem it unneces- 
sary to enter into an extended examination or discussion of the en- 
rollment question in this report. 

With respect to section 3 of the bill, which deals with the sale of 
the remaining unallotted lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Na- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 27 

tions, I am of opinion that these provisions, although meriting care- 
ful consideration, are not absolutely necessary, inasmuch as the sub- 
ject is covered by existing law, in accordance with which the work 
of disposing of those lands is rapidly progressing. 

Section 4 of the bill provides that the Secretary of the Interior, 
under rules and reflations to be prescribed by him, is authorized 
to make a per capita distribution once each fiscal year among the 
legally enrolled members of the Choctaw and Chicfeasaw Tribes of 
Indians, freedraen excepted, of anv funds belonging to said tribes 
held in trust bv the United States (government or any department or 
bureau thereoi, including such funds as may hereafter be credited to 
said tribes. The department favors this provision, deeming authority 
of this kind not only for the benefit of the Indians personally, but 
also ^sential as a means of settling the tribal estates. 
Respectfully, 

Samuel Adams, 
First Assistant Secretmn/. 
Approved, July 18, 1912. 

Walter L. Fisher, 

Secretary. 



Department of the Interior, 

Washington, July 18, 1912, 
My Dear Sir: I am transmitting herewitli, with my approval, a 
report on H. H. 22334, entitled "A bill providing for the final dis- 
position of the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other 
purposes," signed by First Assistant Secretary Adams. This report 
was prepared and signed by Mr. Adams because of the fact that the 
matter had been originally taken up with him by you at the in- 
formal request of yourself and other members of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, expressed at a personal conference at the department. 
In compliance with this request Mr. Adams prepared and trans- 
mitted to you the extended letter of April 22. 1912. and the subse- 
quent letter of July 2, 1912, to which reference is made in the accom- 
panying report. 

Yours, very truly, Walter L. Fisher, 

Secretary, 
Hon. John H. Stephens, 

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, 

House of Representatires, 



Department of the Interior. 

Washington, July 2. 1912, 
Hon. John H. Stephens, 

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, 

House of liepre sent at ices. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a copy of H. E. 

19123, entitled "A bill to reopen the rolls of the Choctaw-Chickasaw 

Tribe and to provide for the awarding the rights secured to certain 

persons by the fourteenth article of the treaty of Dancing Babbit 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



28 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Creek, of date September 27, 1830," and your letter of March 28, 
1912, requesting report thereon for the information of the Com^ 
mittee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives. 

Sections 1 and 2 of the bill, being closely related as to points 
covered, may be considered together with advantage. These sections 
read as follows : 

That the Secretary of the Interior is directed to receive, at any time within 
8lx months after the passage of this act, the application of any person for eu*- 
rollment to the rights of a citizen and member of the Choctaw-Chicljasaw Tribe 
of Indians claiming an interest in the lands and funds of the Choctaw-Chicka- 
saw Tribe by reason of being a descendant of a member of the Choctaw Tribe 
who received, or was entitled to receive, lands under the terms of Article XH* 
of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek under date of September 27, 1830. 

Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior shall be vested with the power to 
determine the rights of s?4iid claimants upon such evidence as may be produced 
l>y the nrrli<ant without regard to any judgment or decision heretofore ren- 
dered by any court or Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or the Depart- 
ment of the Interior, and without regard to any condition or disability hereto^ 
fore imposed by any act of Congress: Provided, That any relevant evidenaei 
ndmipsible either In actions at law or in equity in the courts of the United 
States shall be received by the Secretary of the Interior as evidence in deter- 
mining the rights of snid applicants: Provided further, That any testimony 
received as evidence and appearing in the record in the case of the Choctiiw 
Nation against the United States, No. 12442, in the Court of Claims, may, if 
relevant, be received in evidence. 

In order to determine whether it will be advisable to require the 
department to undertake the work outlined in these sections, a 
review is necessary of the pertinent facts conceminff the origin of 
the claims of the Mississippi Choctaws and the efforts heretofore 
made by the Government to adjudicate the rights of such persons. 

These claims are based upon Article XIV of the treatv of Septem- 
ber 27, 1830 (7 Stat., 383, 335), which reads as follows:' 

Article XIV. Fach Choctaw head of a family belne: desirons to remain 
and become n citizen of the States shall be permitted to do so by sUnifyinf 
his intention to the agent within six mcmths from the ratification of this tfeatj% 
and he or she shall thereupon be entitled to a reservation of one section of G4<i 
acres of land, to be bounded by sectional lines of snney ; in like manner sbaU 
be entitled to one-half that quantity for each unmarried child which is living 
with him over 10 years of age; and to a quarter section to such child as may 
be under 10 years' of age, to adjoin the location of the parent. If they reside 
upon said lands, intending to become citizens of the States, for five years after 
the ratification of this treaty, in that case a grant in fee simple shall issue; 
said reservation shall include the present improvement of the head of the 
family or a portion of it. Persons who claim under this article shall not lose 
the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, but if they ever remove are not to be 
entitled to any portion of the Choctaw annuity. 

When the commissioners representing the United States attempted 
to negotiate the treaty of 1830 they encountered much opposition 
from manv members of the tribe because of the reluctance of a large 
number of the citizens to give up the land which they had occupied 
for many years and to aoandon the graves of their ancestors, as 
would be necessary in view of the removal of the tribe to lands west 
of the Mississippi River, as provided by the terms of the treaty. 
The principal purpose of the (jovemment in negotiating this treaty 
was to induce the Indians to go West, and it appeared for a time 
that the efforts of the commissioners, for the reasons stated, would 
be fruitless. However, at the suggestion of one of their chiefs. 
Greenwood Leflore, Article XIV was inserted in the treaty. By th^ 
terms of this article the Indians were allowed to elect whether they 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 29 

would remain in Mississippi or remove West. Finding that they 
were to have this privilege the opposition to the treaty vanishedf, 
and the negotiations were completed to the satisfaction of the 
Government. 

Pursuant to the terms of the treaty, a large number of Choctaws 
were transferred to the country west of the Mississippi, later known 
as Indian Territory. These Choctaws and their descendants now 
constitute the main body of what is known as the Choctaw Nation. 
The removal of the people was effected by the United States at 
various times by contractors who conducted the several migrations. 

There were a large number of citizens, however, who made appli- 
cation to the United States Indian agent located in Mississippi for 
registration under Article XIV, quoted above. Although a period 
of six months, beginning with September 27, 1830, was allowed for 
the Indians to make known their wishes, no provision was made 
apparently for the receipt of their a^lications until the following 
year. On May 21, 1831, the Office of Indian Affairs, then under the 
Department of War, forwarded to Col. William Ward, the local 
Indian agent^ a cop v of the Choctaw treatv as ratified by Congress, 
with instructions, which read in part as follows : 

Ton will be careful in keeping a register of the reservations taken under 
the fourteenth article of the treaty; a fair copy of which to be made, duly cer- 
tified, and transmitted for the information of the department. 

Many complaints appear in the records of the Indian Office con- 
cerning the conduct of Col. Ward in performing the duty devolving 
upon him under these instructions. Various official reports show 
that he was oftentimes intoxicated when the Indians applied to him 
for their reservations; that he was harsh and abusive m his treat- 
ment of them ; and that after making a few registrations arbitrarily 
refused to receive any more applications and drove the Indians from 
his presence. The register which he prepared bore his certificate of 
August 24, 1831. It shows that the first application was registered 
April 18, 1831, and the last August 23, 1831. The names of onlv 71 
persons appear upon this register. This number represents only a 
small portion of the persons who attempted to take advantage of the 
provisions of said Article XIV. The whole number of heads of 
families who received land was 143. 

Ward's conduct was so plainly contrary to the provisions of the 
treaty that Congress subsequently made provision by acts passed in 
1837 and 1842 for commissions to investigate the claims of Indians 
who alleged their applications were refused. It appears from the 
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Choctaw Nation r. 
The United States (119 U. S., 1) that 1,346 Choctaw heads of fami- 
lies complied with or attempted to comply with the provisions of the 
treaty, and that as late as 1838 there were 5,000 Choctaws still resid- 
ing in the State of Mississippi. 

The persons found entitled by these commissions were awarded 
scrip in lieu of the land which should have been allotted them under 
-\rticle XIV of the treaty of 1830. One-half of this scrip was deliv- 
ered to the applicants while residing east of the Mississippi. The 
other half was withheld until such time as they should remove to the 
lands west of the Mississippi, or at least until they should actually 
embark for such removal. This scrip gave the applicants the right 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



so FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

to enter public lands in certain Southern States; later the portion of 
the scrip not delivered was commuted by a money payment. 

The ^reat majority of the fourteenth-article claimants remained In 
Mississippi. Some of them, however, drifted into neighboring States, 
and others finally made their way west and joined the main body of 
the tribe in Indian Territory. It should be noted in this connection 
that by various acts the Choctaw Council recognized the right of the 
absentee Mississippi Choctaws to remove to the nation and actualh' 
invited them to do so. 

Those who removed to the Indian Territory were allowed to settle 
upon the lands of the tribe, and some of them were recognized and 
enrolled by the tribal authorities, either by acts of the council or 
decrees of the tribal courts. A number of them, however, appear to 
have enjoyed the substantial benefits of Choctaw citizenship, but 
without establrshing by any legal procedure their right to enrollment. 

The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, having been created 
for the purpose of negotiating with those tribes plans looking to the 
allotment of their lands and the breaking up of the tribal govern- 
ments, rendered a report to Congrcvss under date of January 28, 1898, 
setting forth what the commission deemed to be the rights of the Mis- 
sissippi Choctaws in the lands occupied by the main body of the 
tribe in Indian Territory. This report appears on page 10 of the 
printed report of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for 
the year 1898. After reviewing the history of the Mississippi Choc- 
taws and certain laws relating to them, the commission stated its 
conclusion as follows: 

It follows, therefore, from this reasoning, as well as from the historical 
review already reeiteil and the nature of the title Itself, as well as all stipula- 
tions concerning it in the treaties between the Uniteil States and the Choctaw 
Nation, that to avail himself of the " jirivilepes of a Choctaw citizen '* any per- 
son claiming to l)e a descendant of those Choctaws who were provided for in 
the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1S,30 must first show the fact that he !s 
such descendant and has in good faith joined his brethren in the Territory 
with the intent to become one of the citizens of the nation. Having done so, 
such person has a right to be enrolled as a Choctaw citizen and to claim all the 
privileges of such a citizen, except to a share in the annuities. And that other- 
wise he can not claim as a right the "privilege of a Choctaw citizen." 

To the claim as tluis defined the Choctaw Nation has always acceded, and 
has manifested in many ways its willingness to take into its citizenship anr 
one or all of the Mississippi Choctaws who would leave their residence and 
citizenship in that State and join in good faith their brethren in the Territory, 
with participation in all the privileges of such citizenship, save only a share 
in their annuities, for which an equivalent has been given in the grant of land 
and citizenship in Mississippi. 

As a result of the report of the Commission to the Five Civilized 
Tribes the following paragraph was inserted in section 21 of the act 
of. June 28, 1898 (30 Stat., 495) : 

And said conmilssion shall have authority to determine the identity of Choc- 
taw Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under Article XIV of tlie 
treaty between the Ignited States and the Choctaw Nation concluded Septem- 
ber 27, 1880, and to that end may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and per- 
form all other acts necessary thereto, and make report to the Secretary of the 
Interior. 

It will be observed that this provision of law authorized only the 
identification of Mississippi Choctaws, and that it did not contain 
authority for their final enrollment or for the apportionment to them 
of any sliare of the lands or money of the Choctaw and Chickasaw 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 



31 



Nations. The reports of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
for several years following this legislation show that the work of 
a«certaining the identity ot the Mississippi Choctaws was one of con- 
siderable magnitude and complicated by many difficulties, principal 
among which was the inability of the Mississippi Choctaws to look 
after their own interests. Many of the full bloods were found to be 
poor and ignorant. They were suspicious of the commission and 
the Government, and it proved necessary to send interpreters to their 
homes. Even then it was impossible in many cases to get the history 
of themselves and their ancestors with any degree of certainty. 

In its annual report for the year 1901, at page 21, the Commission 
to the Five CivUized Tribes commented upon the character of the 
task of identifying the Mississippi Choctaws, stating that to require 
a strict compliance with the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830 
on the part of ignorant full-blood Indians in the State of Mississippi 
would produce but little, if any, result favorable to them. 

There was also among the applicants (who came from various sec- 
tions of the country) a ''great army of apparent whites and negroes." 

The work of the commission as to Mississippi Choctaws prior to 
the agreement of 1902 is shown by the table which follows : 

Mississippi Choctaw applications. 



XJp to and inclusive of June 30, 1900 ; 

4» iiuskogee, Ind. T., from July 1, 1900, to Nov. 30, 1900, inclusive I 

At Hsttfesburg, Miss., Dec. 17 to Dec. 22, 1900, inclusive 

At Atoka, Ind. T., from Jan. 2 to June 30, 1901, inclusive I 

At Meridian, Miss., from Apr. 1 to June 30, 1901, inclusive 

At Philadelphia, Neshoba County, Miss., from Apr. 29 to Mav 4, 1901, inclusive. I 

At Carthage, J.eake County, Miss., from May 6 to May 11, 1901. inclusive 

At Decatur, Newton Oountv, Miss., from Mav 13 to Mav 18, 1901, inclusive 

H«ard at Atoka, Ind. T., from July 1 , 1901, to Oct. 31, 1901, inclusive 

Heard at the general office at Muskogee from Nov. 1, 1901, to June 30, 1902, in-^lu- 

tfve I 

Heard at Meridian, Miss., from July 1, 1901, to Oct. 10, 1901, inclusive 

Heard in field, State of Mississippi, from Oct. 11, 1901, to Jan. 14, 1902, inclusive. .' 

Heard at Meridian. Miss., from Jan. 15 to Feb. 17, 1902, inclusive 

Heard in field. State of Mississippi, from Feb. 21 to Apr. 13, 1902, inclusive 

Hoard at Meridian, Miss., from Apr. 14 to Apr. 30, 1902, inclusive i 

Total ' "i 9.50 



Number of 


Number of 


heard. 


persons 
included In 
such appli- 
cations. 


4S1 


1,666 


641 


2,008 


93 


356 


636 


1,826 


:rs 


3.002 


76 


229 


56 


203 


33 


101 


699 


2,192 


1.320 


4,503 


415 


1,393 


175 


464 


216 


716 


161 


464 


170 


584 



19.791 



In adjudicating these cases under the act of June 28, 1808, the 
iiuestion determined in each instance was whether the applicant or 
any of his ancestors complied or attempted to comply with Article 
XIV of the treaty of 1880. The applicants were not held to the 
ri^d requirement that they must prove descent from an ancestor who 
actually received a patent to lands in Mississippi under said article. 
ITie rule adopted was sufficiently broad to permit of the identifica- 
tion of persons whose ancestors were awarded scrip in lieu of pat- 
ents. The rights of the applicants were also considered where their 
allegations were confined only to an attempted compliance on the 
part of their ancestors with Article XIV. It should be stated, how- 
ever, in this connection, that the applicants as a rule were unable to 
prove, as a matter of fact, their descent from any person who re- 
ceived or was entitled to receive the benefits of said article. A few 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



32 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

pereons were identified as descendants of patentees, but in a greait 
majority of the cases the applicants either had no right whatever to 
identification or were so ignorant of their family history that they 
were wholly unable to sustain their claim of right. 

The commissioner to the Five Civilized Tril^ stated in his report 
for the year ended June 30, 1906, that it became apparent that the 
ignorant full blood, for whom Congress had intended to provide, had 
no record of his ancestry and could not prove his rights under the 
law, and if required to do so would fail to receive the benefits of the 
legislation. Accordingly, in order that this might not happen, the 
following provision was embodied in the act of July 1, 1902' (sec. 41, 
32 Stat., 641) : 

♦ ♦ * The application of no person for identification as a Mississippi 
Choctaw shall be received by said commission after six months subsequent to 
the date of the final ratification of this agreement, and in the disposition of 
such applications all full-blood Mississippi Choctaw Indians and the descend- 
ants of any Mississippi Choctaw Indians, whether of full or mixed blood, who 
receive a patent to land under the said fourteenth article of said treaty of 
1830 who had not moved to and made bona fide settlement in the Choctaw- 
Chlckasaw country prior to June 28, 1898, shall be deemed to be Mississippi 
Choctaws, entitled to benefits under Article XIV of the said treaty of Sejh 
tember 27, 1830, and to identification as such by said commission, but this 
direction or provision shall be deemed to be only a rule of evidence and shall 
not be Invoked by or operate to the advantage of any applicant who Is not a 
Mississippi Choctaw of the full blood, or who Is not the descendant of a Mis- 
sissippi Choctaw who received a patent to land under said treaty, or who is 
otherwise barred from the right of citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. 

Under this act it will be observed, first, that the right to make ap- 
plications was given for a period of six months — that is to say, for 
six months following September 25, 1902; second, that descendants 
of actual beneficiaries imder Article XIV, irrespective of their degree 
of Indian blood, were to be recognized as Mississippi Choctaws; and, 
third, that a rule of CAndence was prescribed, to be accepted in lieu 
of proof of ancestrv^, according any full blood the righte of a Mis- 
sissippi Choctaw. 

In the administration of this act, a question arose as to whether, 
in case of the identification of a full-blood parent as a Mississippi 
Choctaw, the decision in his favor would inure to the benefit of 
children bom to him of mixed Indian blood. An example of this 
kind is to be found in the case of the family of Calvin McMillan. 
(M. C. R, 4215.) The census card in this case shows that the wife 
only, Mollie McMillan, was identified. In this family there were 
11 members, all of whom were alleged to be full-blood Indians but 
only one of whom was identified. 

ifty ietter of March 17, 1903, prepared under supervision of Mr, 
Van Devanter, then A.ssistant Attorney General, the Secretary of 
the Interior held that the mixed-blood children of full bloods were 
entitled to identification under said section 41. This decision was 
overruled, however, by the opinion of the Attorney General of June 
10, 1903, wherein he held that the rights conferred upon such Mis- 
sissippi Choctaws were in the nature of gifts, and therefore that the 
act should be strictly construed to the exclusion of all except full 
bloods where Indian blood was the only evidence relied upon. 

A second question which arose was as to whether, under said sec- 
lion 41, persons of mixed blood claiming identification through proof 
of ancestry were required to e.^tahlish their descent from an actual^- 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 






FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 33 

patentee or might also submit proof of descent from persons who 
attempted to comply with the treaty. The view was adopted that 
it was not intended by the agreement to disturb the rule theretofore 
followed by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes permitting 
applicants to submit proof of their descent from persons entitled to 
the benefits of Article XIV who did not receive patents thereunder. 
However, as before stated, only very few persons of mixed blood 
were able ix> furnish the necessary facts to establidi their ancestry. 

Following the agreement of 1902 came the acts of March 3, 1905, 
and April 26, 1906, authorizing the enrollment of new-bom citizens 
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. Under these acts a number 
of children whose parents had been found entitled to enrollment 
by the Secretary of the Interior were added to the final rolls of the 
Choctaw Nation. 

The term " identification," as used in connection with the Missis- 
sippi Choctaw work, refers to the preliminary decision of the Secre- 
tary of the Interior holding applicants to be entitled to the benefits 
growing out of Article XIV of the treaty of 1830 and the later acts 
looking to their removal to the Indian Territory. However, the 
identification of an applicant was not in any case a guaranty that be 
would ultimately succeed to the benefits of Choctaw citizenship. By 
the terms of section 41 of the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641), 
" identified " Mississippi Choctaws were allowed six months after the 
date of their identification to remove to the Choctaw-Chicaksaw 
country and make settlement there. If they failed to remove, they 
lost the benefits of their identification. 

It was further provided by the same section that upon proof of 
their settlement in the Choctaw Nation, which proof was to be sub- 
mited within one year after the date of their identification, they 
should be " enrolled " by the Commission to the Five Civilized Trib^ 
as Mississippi Choctaws entitled to allotment, as provided for other 
citizens of the tribes, subject to special provisions relating to Missis- 
sippi Choctaws, such enrollment to be final when approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior. 

By section 42 of the same act it was provided that when any Mis- 
sissippi Choctaw had in ^ood faith continuously resided upon the lands 
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw coimtry for a period of three years, 
he should " upon due proof of such continuous bona fide residence," 
receive a patent for his lands. Section 44 of the same act also pro- 
vided that if within four years after enrollment any Mississippi 
Choctaw, or his heirs or representatives in case of his death, failed to 
make proof of continuous bona fide residence for the period so pre- . 
scribed, or up to the time of the death of such Mississippi Choctaw, 
in case of his death after enrollment, he and his heirs and representa- 
tives, if he be dead, should be deemed to have acquired no interest 
in the land set apart to him, and the same should be sold at public 
auction for cash. 

These requirements made it impossible for many ignorant and 
indigent full bloods to take advantage of the preliminary decisions of 
ttie commission and of the department identifying them. It is true 
that some effort was made by the Government to assist such persons 
hi removing to the Indian Territory. The Eleventh Annual Report 
of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, the same being for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1904, contains on page 19 a statement 

60282—13 3 Digitized by ^OOglC 



34 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

by the commission upon this point This statement is to the effect 
t^at those identified as Mississippi Choctaws were chiefly indigent 
full bloods who formerly resided in Mississippi and were without 
means of removing to Indian Territory, and that Congress, in order 
that they might receive the benefits of identification, ai)propriated 
$20,000 to be used in defraying expenses incident to their removal. 
The expediture of this appropriation was placed under the direc- 
tion of the comniisbion, and on July 24, 1903, a special agent wa* 
designated to undertake the work. Circulars setting forth the pur- 
pose of the Government were distributed in the full-blood settlements 
in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and the special agent of the 
Government proceeded to Meridian for the purpose of mobilizing 
those of the Indians who desired to avail themselves of the aid offered 
by the Government. August 13, 1903, a special train carrying 264 
full bloods arrived at Atoka, in the Indian Territory. Arrangements 
had been made for their subsistence at a camp 3 miles south of Atoka 
until such time as they could be placed upon their respective allot- 
ments. Twenty-six additional identified full-blood Mississippi Choc- 
taws were removed on O/Ctober 9, 1903, to Fort Towson, making a 
total of 290 transported under the direction of the commission. The 
entire appropriation was expended in the removal of these Indians 
and for their subsistence after removal. 

The number transported by the Government (290) was only a 
small portion of the number identified as Mississippi Choctaws by 
the commission under the acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902. 
said number being 2,534. 

Arrangements were also made by private parties for the transpor- 
tati(^n of Mississippi Choctaws. By reason of alleged expenditures 
in connection with the removal of such persons, suit was subsequently 
authorized by Congress to be instituted in the Court of Claims, and 
all Mississippi Choctaw lands are now held by the allottees under 
the cloud of an alleged lien which the claimants contend attached to 
such lands under the act giving the court jurisdiction, it being further 
. contended that the lien extends also to the funds in the Treasury of 
the United States to the credit of such Mississippi Choctaws. 

Under the laws of Congress the contracts looking to the sale or 
incumbrance in any way of Mississippi Choctaw lands prior to allot' 
ment were made invalid, with the result that it was impossible to 
provide such persons in advance with a fund to meet their expenses, 
even with the approval of the department. 

The report ot the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes for 
. the vear ending June 30, 1907, shows, on page 12, that 24,634 persons 
applied to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for identifica- 
tion as Mississippi Choctaws under the acts of June 28, 1898, and 
July 1, 1902; that of this number 2,534 were identified as Mississippi 
Choctaws. and that of the number so identified 1,072 persons failed 
to remove to the Indian Territory and submit proof of their removal 
and settlement within the time required by law. In this connection 
the commissioner stated that several reasons might be given for the 
failui-e of the identified persons to take advantage of their oppor- 
tunity to submit proof of such removal and settlement: that many of 
them did not appreciate the value of allotments in the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw coimtry : that few Mississippi Choctaws made more than 
a bare living in their former homes and hence had no means for 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



JIVB OIVILIZSD TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 3^ 

transportation; that some who were transported by individuals be- 
came sick under illtreatment and died the first winter; and that 
those who survived advised their friends and relatives remaining in 
Mississippi and Alabama of their experience, which discouraged them 
from making an attempt at removing. 

It further appears from this report that under the new-born acts 
of March 3, 1905, and April 26, 1906, applications were made for the 
enrollment of 372 children of Mississippi Choctaws ; that 198 of such 
children were enrolled and the applications of 174 rejected or dis- 
missed. 

The final results, as diown on page 13 of said report, were as 
follows : 

Enrollment of Mississippi Choctaics, 

Enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902 1.415 

Enrolled under act of Mar. 3. 1905 11 

Enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 187 

Total 1,643 

I wish to refer in this connection to my letter of April 22, 1912, 
relating to the general subject of enrollment, wherein I pointed out 
under the heading of " Class III " that there were approximately 10 
cases where families of Mississippi Choctaws were identified by the 
department within the last six nu^nths prior to March 4, 1907 — some 
of whom were identified within the last few days prior to said date — 
and that they were consequently deprived of the usual period of time 
allowed other Mississippi Choctaws under the agreement of 1902 for 
removal to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country. These 10 families are 
in a class by themselves, because, notwithstanding formal adjudica- 
tion of their rights, they were prevented by the abrupt closing of the 
enrollment work from taking advantage of the decisions which had 
been rendered in their favor. 

I am advised that if the work of reinvestigating and readjudicating 
the claims of Mississippi Choctaws be undertaken along the broad 
lines outlined in the bill introduced by Mr. Harrison, the work can 
not be accomplished within the time prescribed therein ; that if the 
applicants are required to establish that they or some one of their 
ancestors were beneficiaries under Article XI V of the treaty of 1830, 
a vast amount of evidence will necessarily have to be taken covering 
the family history of the applicants for more than 80 years ; and that 
this worK would be a repetition of work which has already been 
accomplished and in the great majority of cases would be of no 
benefit Avhatever to the applicants. Experience has shown that in 
those cases where there would seem to be the most merit, judging by 
the physical appearance of the applicants, such applicants were least 
able to establish the facts concerning their ancestry. The great diffi- 
culty which such persons encounter is due to their frequent change of 
residence, the breaking up of family ties, and the substitution of 
English for Indian names. 

If Congress shall be of the opinion that any legislation whatever 
is needed for the relief of Mississippi Choctaws, either at the expense 
of the United States or the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, the 
meritorious cases, with few exceptions, can be selected from existing 
records of this det)artment now in the custody of the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes, at Muskogee, Okla. As to the 10 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



36 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBB8 IN OKLAHOMA. 

famlies referred to above, it is unnecessary for me to discuss the mat- 
ter of their enrollment herein, inasmuch as I have reported fully 
as to them in said report of April 22, 1912. With respect to the 
1,070 persons who were identified as Mississippi Choctaws, but who 
failed to prove the facts of removal and settlement in the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw countrv, it may be said that irrespective of their un- 
fortimate condition oi poverty and ignorance, there is grave ques- 
tion whether there is any just ground, legal or equitable, for holding 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations responsible for their failure to 
comply with the law. In fact, it may be urged by the tribes that 
responsibility, if any, rested upon the United States instead. As to 
the mixed-blood children of full-blood parents who were identified as 
Mississippi Choctaws under the rule of evidence prescribed by section 
41 of the act of July 1, 1902, which excused them from proof of 
ancestry, it would seem that the propriety of further action looking 
to their enrollment would be dependent largely upon whether the 
benefits of the agreement of 1902 were in the nature of gifts to the 
fuU bloods. 

Section 3 of the bill provides that claimants may be represented 
by attorneys, whose fees shall be fixed in accordance with any contract 
now or hereafter made between the applicant and said attorney, and 
that such contract shall govern the amount of such fee, provided that 
the Secretary of the Interior may limit the percentage of compensa- 
tion in each case and that the contract shall be enforceable for no 
greater sum than that fixed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

In connection with this section^ it may be said that the records of 
the department show the Mississippi Choctaws have been to an un- 
usual extent the victims of numerous extortionate contracts, which were 
doubtless obtained in some instances through misrepresentation of 
facts and in some cases by persons falsely representing themselves 
to be Government agents. I am therefore of opinion that if anv 
legislation whatever be enacted for the purposes indicated by the bill, 
conditions even more stringent than those set forth in section 3 
should be provided with reference to such contracts. Persons de- 
siring to negotiate with the Indians should be known to be of rep- 
utable character. They should be required to obtain permission 
first from the Department of the Interior to negotiate with the 
claimants. They should be limited by law as to the maximum 
amount to be paid under such contracts and a penalty should be 
provided for tating any contract or attempting to enforce any agree- 
ment made in violation of law. 

Section 4 of the bill provides that the Secretary of the Interior 
shall have prepared and make a schedule or roll of all persons entitled 
imder the act, within eight months after its passage, and within said 
eight months award them the full rights of citizens and members 
of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Tribe. It seems almost needless to say 
that if the investigation and reexamination be made in the wholesale 
fashion proposed dj the bill, it would be, as indicated in a previous 
connection, a physical impossibility to accomplish the work within 
this time. 

Sections 5 and 6 of the bill would appear to be appropriate pro- 
visions in the event that such a bill should be enacted. Section 7 
provides among other things that depositions may be taken in sup- 
port of said applications m any place in the United States upon 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



PIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 87 

notice to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior, 
and that the procedure as to notice and taking of depositions shall be 
as in ordinary cases before the United States courts. If this section 
should be enacted, it would be absolutely impossible for the repre- 
sentatives of the tribes to be represented at all hearings and to subject 
the witnesses to cross-examination and furnish the rebuttal evidence 
which would be necessary to a proper examination of the cases. 

The latter part of section 7 provides that the expense of taking 
depositions on the part of claimants shall be paid by the applicants 
in the first instance, but shall be taxed as co^ts in each case where 
the applicant is successful and said costs shall be charged to the funds 
of said tribe in the United States Treasury. If this clause be enacted, 
a burden will be placed up>on the tribes not imposed upon them with 
respect to many thousands of unsuccessful applicants heretofore 
denied enrollment. j 

Section 8 provides a time limit of six mo^iths for the submission 
of applications. If the bill be enacted, some such provision as tliis 
should be included therein, although it is questionable whether 
Indians of the full blood as well as those of mixed blood whose 
habits, customs, and language are substantially those of the full 
bloods should be so limited without any provision whatever for some 
one to act as their representative under authority of the Government. 

Section 9 of the bill provides that the tribal organization of the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw Tribe shall be abolished and the title to all 
tribal lands and moneys yet undistributed be vested in the United 
States as trustee. This provision is not necessarily a part of an 
enrollment bill, and should, in my opinion, be made the subject of a 
separate measure, providing Congress is satisfied that the lime has 
now arrived for the abolishment of the tribal organization. 

I wish to suggest that the term " Choctaw-ChickJisaw Tribe," as 
used in various places in the bill, is not in harmony with the history 
or organization of said tribes. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations 
are entirely independent in their organization. It is tnie that prior 
to allotment they did own in common all of the lands embraced with- 
in the Choctaw-Chickasaw coimtry, but they did not constitute a 
single tribe. 

In view of the facts stated above, I am of opinion, that the bill 
should not be enacted into law. 

Copy of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior of March 17, 
1903, relating to the identification of mixed-blood children of Missis- 
sippi Choctaws, is inclosed for your consideration. The opinion of 
the Attorney General of June 19, 1903, relating to the same subject, 
appears on page 689 of Volume XXIV of the printed opinions of the 
Attorney General. 

Respectfully, Samuel Adams, 

First Assistant Secret a?*]/. 



Department of the Interior, 

Washington, Mar^h 17, 1903, 

The Commission to the Ffve Civilized Tribes,* • 

Muskogee, Ind, 1\ 
Sirs: I am in receipt, through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 
of a report of your commission relative to the right to ideijti^^t^ 



88 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

as Mississippi Choctaws of half-blood children of identified full- 
blood Mississippi Choctaws. 

November 21, 1902, the department referred to your commission 
for consideration and report a communication from Charles F. 
Win ton, of November 11, 1902, contending that the children of iden- 
tified full-blood Mississippi Choctaws are entitled to identification, 
though such children are of part white blood. Your commission 
made its report of December 9, 1902, that in its opinion — 

* * ♦ The identification of Mississlpi)! Choctaws is limited to full-blood 
Indians alone, with the exception of those persons who can show proof of 
compliance on the part of their ancestors with the provisions of the fourteenth 
article of the Choctaw treaty of 1830 or the descendant of any Missiseippi 
Choctaw who received a patent to land under said fourteenth article. 

The provisions of the forty-first section of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902 
(32 Stats., 641), can not in the opinion of the commission be construed to confer 
upon the children of full-blood Choctaw Indians by white persons the special 
benefits therein conferi*ed upon full-blood Choctaws. 

Article 2 of the treaty of September 27, 1830 (7 Stat., 333), granted 
to the Choctaws en bloc ii tract of land in Indian Territory in fee 
simple. Part only of these Indians removed to the granted land. 
By article 14 of the treaty they had a right to remain and become 
citizens of the States and there take allotments of land. By article 
16 the others were to be removed to the Indian Territorv. 

Section 21 of the act of June 28, 1898 (30 Stat, 495, 503), au- 
thorized the commission to (?etermine the identity of Choctaw Indians 
claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under the fourteenth article 
of the treaty of September 27, 1830, supra, and to make a correct roll 
of citizens of the several Indian nations, and directed that — 

No i)ers()n shnll be enrolled who has not heretofore reiuove<l to and in good 
faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship: Provided, howet>er^ 
That nothing; Ct)iirnined in this act shall he construed as to militate against 
any rights or privileges which the Mississij^pi Choctaws may have under tho 
laws of. or the treaties with, the United States. 

Article 41 of the agreement between the United States and the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, made March 21, 1902, ratiiSed on 
part of the United States July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641, 651), i^rovides 
on behalf of the Mississippi Choctaws that all persons identified by 
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes under section 21 of the 
act of June 28, 1898. supra, as Mississippi Choctaws entitled to 
benefits of article 14 of the treaty of September 27, 1830, supra, may, 
within six months from their identification, make bona fide settle- 
ment in the Choctaw-Chickasaw countrv, and upon proof of such 
settlement within a year after their identification be enrolled as 
Mississippi Choctaws entitled to allotment, applications for identifi- 
cation as Mississippi Choctaws being limited, however, to six months 
from final ratification of the agreement. 

Said article prescribed as a rule of evidence that (1) all full -blood 
Mississippi Choctaws and (2) the descendants or full or mixed 
blood Mississippi Choctaws who received patent to land under article 
14, supra, who had not moved to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country 
prior to June 28. 1898, shall be deemed Mississippi Choctaws entitled 
to benefijt of article 14 of the treaty and to identification as such by 
said commission. 

But under the further provisions of said article the foregoing 
clauses 1 and 2 shall not operate to the benefit of one (a) not a 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IX OKLAHOMA. 39 

'Mississippi Choctaw of the full blood or one (b) not descendant of 
a Mississippi Choctaw who received patent to land under the treaty 
or to one (c) otherwise barred of the right of citizenship in the 
Choctaw Nation. 

Under these provisions of law the question arises whether children 
of mixed white blood of a duly identified full-blood Mississippi Choc- 
taw are entitled to enrollment as Mississippi Choctaws entitled to 
allotment in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country. 

It can not be presumed that by clauses i and 2 above it was in- 
tended to authorize the enrollment of a person as a citizen of the 
Indian Nation and at the same time to exclude that person's de- 
scendants. To do so would be contrary to the law of descent and 
right of the child to succeed to the civic rights of membership in the 
community to which the parent belongs, universally recognized by 
all political organizations and differing only in respect to the line 
of descent whether confined to the male or female line or common 
to both. 

To admit to enrollment one because he has been identified as a 
full-blood Choctaw and to exclude from that privilege his child, 
unless such child can show that a remote ancestor had. in fact, re- 
ceived the benefit of article 14 of the treaty of 1830. would be absurd. 
The whole tenor of the legislation relating to the enrollment of 
members of the Five Civilized Tribes shows an intention to avoid 
such an absurdity and to give to the child the same rights as to 
citizenship as are held by the parent. The controlling motive in the 
enrollment of Mississippi Choctaws is to exclude all who can not 
trace their claims to one who comes within the provisions of said 
article of the treaty of 1830 and to enroll all who can thus trace their 
claims. In the case presented here the father has, under the rule of 
evidence prescribed, Drought himself within the provisions of said 
treaty, and all who can trace their descent from him must be con- 
sidered as having brought themselves within the rule of evidence 
thus prescribed. The fact of mixed blood can not exclude children 
of those identified as entitled to be enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws 
from right to be enrolled as such. You will be governed accord- 
ingly, and will enroll as Mississippi Choctaws the children of all 
persons who are or may be identified by you as full-blood Mississippi 
Choctaws entitled to enrollment. 

Very respectfully, E. A. Hitchcock, 

Secretarj/, 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



JtEFOBT OF W. C. POLLOCK OF JANITAET 15, 1912, CONCEBNING 
THE ENBOLLlfENT OF CITIZENS AND FBEEDMEN OF THE FIVE 
CIVILIZED TBIBES, WITH BELATED PAPEBS. 



Department of the Interior, 
Washington^ February 19^ 1912. 
Hon. Robert J. Gamble, 

Chcdi^man Committee on Indian Affairs^ United States Senate. 
Sir: Because of persistent statements that many persons entitled 
to enrollment as members of one or another of tJie Five Civilized 
Tribes had been omitted from the final rolls, W. C. Pollock, an as- 
sistant attorney in the office of the Assistant Attorney General for 
this department, was, in connection with a visit to Oklahoma to 
observe conditions and work of the department in regard to Indian 
matters there, instructed : 

You will give special jitteiition to tlie matter of adding names to the rolls 
of citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes, making such investigation and taking 
such testimony as you and the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, with 
whom you will cooperate in this matter, may determine to be necessary. The 
cases to be thus investigated are those of minor orphan children. incomi)etenta 
and Indians in incarceration whose claims were not presented in due time 
for adjudication and such other cases as have unusual merits. 

He submitted a report under date of January 15, 1912, a copy 
of which, with the exhibits mentioned therein, is inclosed herewith 
for the information of your committee. 

Very respectfully. Samuel Adams, 

Acting Secretary. 

Department of the Interior, 
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, 

Washington^ January 15^ 1912. 
The Secretary of the Interior. 

Sir: September 12, 1910, I was directed to go to Muskogee and 
other points in Oklahoma to observe conditions of the work of the 
department in connection with Indian matters, and further — 

You will give special attention to the matter of adding name^ to the roUs 
of citizens of the Five CivUized Tribes, making such Investigation and taking 
such testimony as you and the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, with 
whom you will cooperate in this matter, may determine to be necessary. The 
cases to be thus investigated are those of minor orphan children, incompetents, 
and Indians in incarceration whose claims were not presented In due time for 
adjudication, and such other cases as have unusual merits. 

Mr. George Eeed, of the Indian Office, was directed by the Commis- 
sioner of Indian Affairs at about the same time to go to Oklahoma 
to represent that office in the investigation. 

A list was made of persons whose claims to citizenship in any of 
the Five Civilized Tribes had been brought to the notice of the de- 
partment or the Indian Office, but, because not presented within the 
time prescribed by law or for some other reason, not considered and 

40 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 41 

adjudicated. This list was sflbmitte<l to the Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes for examination in connection with the records 
of his office, for the notation of any further information disclosed 
thereby, and for the addition of other names in like situation, if any 
such were found. 

The district agents were requested to report the claims of persons 
known to them who seemed to fall within the classes to be investi- 
gated. Similar requests were made, both by letter and orally, of 
members of the several tribes who were believed to be in a position to 
furnish such information. Many letters were written to persons 
whose names had thus been ascertained, or to their parents, guar- 
dians, or attorneys. One immediate result was a considerable volume 
of correspondence by which some of the names were eliminated from 
further examination and other names were added to the list to be 
inquired into. The more definite information thus obtained indicated 
the neighborhoods where the claimants were to be found and gave 
a basis for determining a plan for making investigations in the 
several nations. It was conclusively shown that but little could be 
accomplished at the office in Muskogee. 

In the Seminole Nation but few ca^es were developed, and these 
were investigated by Assistant District Agent Crain, an intermar- 
ried member of the nation and personally acquainted with sub- 
stantially everj' other member. The act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 
137), authorizing the enrollment of children living March 4, 1906, 
did not apply to the Seminoles. This fact and the comparatively 
small membership of the nation — only about 3,100 in all — are suffi- 
cient to explain the small number of omissions there. 

In the Creek Nation the cases which seemed to have merit were 
mainly those of minor children, orphans, or children whose parents 
were full-blood Indians still opposed to the whole scheme of allot- 
ting their lands. It was found necessary to make an active search 
for witnesses to establish the facts in such cases. Supervising Dis- 
trict Agent Bliss, accompanied by Mr. M. L. Mott, attorney for the 
Creek Nation, and Jesse McDermott, official interpreter and well 
acquainted with this class of Creek Indians, visited various points 
in the nation and secured testimony touching such cases. 

Like work was done in the Cherokee Nation by Mr. Reed and Dis- 
trict Agent S. A. Mills, accompanied by an interpreter well ac- 
quainted with the country and the full-blood Cherokees. After Mr. 
Keed's return to Washington the work was continued by Mr. Mills. 

Conditions in the Chickasaw Nation and also in the Choctaw Na- 
tion were different. The data gathered indicated that there were few 
cases which had not been previously presented and considered, and 
that such cases could be better looked after by visits to the towns or 
cities of McAlester, Ardmore, Durant, Hugo, and Idabel. A few 
of the cases, not convenient to any of these points, were referred 
to the proper district agent for investigation. Appointments were 
made for the towns mentioned and notice thereof given to all 
known claimants, to attorneys interested, and to the public generally 
through the district agent. A large majority of the cases brought 
forward in these nations were those which theretofore had been pre- 
sented, considered, and decided by some duly constituted tribunal. 
The records had been made up, and there was no occasion for a fur- 
ther investigation in the field. They were not of the classes contem- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



42 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

plated by the instructions under whfch the investigation was being 
made. Testimony was heard in a few of these cases upon the urgent 
insistence of the parties, with the distinct understanding in each 
instance that the case was not then under consideration and that the 
additional testimony would simply be filed with the record already 
made up. The attorneys for the nations objected to the examina- 
tion of any witnesses in such cases, claiming with force that those 
cases had been finally adjudicated and that there remained no juris- 
diction to reopen or take any action in connection therewith. 

It is also noted that in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations a 
large majority of the cases were presented by attorneys, while in 
the other nations but few of the individuals were represented by 
attorneys. 

The claimants for recognition as Choctaw freedmen constitute a 
separate class. The act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 137), provides 
in part: 

That after ninety days after approval hereof applications shall be received 
for enrollment of children who were minors living March fourth, nineteen hun- 
dred and six, whose parents have been enrolled as members of the Choctaw, 
Chickasaw. Cherokee, or Creek Tribes, or have applications for enrollment 
pending at the approval hereof, and for the purpose of enrollment under this 
section illegitimate children shall take the status of the mother and allotments 
shall be made to children so enrolled. 

The Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes held that Choctaw 
freedmen were not entitled to the benefits of this provision and re- 
fused to accept applications for them. The department disagreed 
with him on this proposition, and on Jnlv 17, 1006, directed him by 
telegram and also by letter to receive an(i pass upon applications of 
this character. This, however, left less than 10 days of the 90-day 
period provided in the act for ^ving notice of the changed ruling 
and permitting applications to be presented. Manifestly, it was im- 
possible for these people to submit applications within this limited 
period. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations still earnestlv insist 
that the law of 1906 did not authorize the enrollment of Choctaw 
freedmen, that the 478 names added to the roll of freedmen under 
that law was wrongfully there, and that the injustice thus done the na- 
tions should not be augmented by adding yet other names of this class. 

The results of the investigatiouy so far as it disclosed individuals 
apparently possessing qualifications entitling them to be placed on 
the final rolls, but who were overlooked and omitted from those rolls 
because their claims were not presented at all, or at least not within 
the time prescribed by law, are shown in the lists submitted herewith 
marked "Exhibits 1 to 6," inclusive. 

List 1, Seminoles, shows the names of 8 persons, all children, liv- 
ing March 4. 1905, the date fixed by the act approved March 3, 1905 
(83 Stat., 1048, 1071), authorizing the enrollment of Seminole 
children. 

List 2, Creeks, shows the names of 62 persons of Creek blood and 
of 2 Creek freedmen, all of whom except 10 are minors. Since the 
approved rolls of Creek citizens by blood contain 11,967 names, and 
the rolls of Creek freedmen contain 6,837 names, it is seen that tlie 
percentage of omissions is remarkably small. 

List 8, Cherokees, shows the names of 125 Cherokees by blood and 
2 Cherokee freedmen, all except 5 being minors, and most of them 
less than 4 years of age March 4, 1906. AVhen the roll was made in 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 43 

1909 under direction of the Court of Claims for distribution of the 
Eastern Cherokee fund, the names of a considerable number of chil- 
dren appeared thereon who had not been placed on the final rolls 
of the Cherokee Nation, but whose parents were enrolled there. Upon 
examination, it was found that many of these people were, in fact, 
on the final roll, but under different names; that others had died 

Srior to March 4, 1906; that others were not bom until after that 
ate; and that some were on the Eastern Cherokee roll at two and 
occasionally three different names. It is quite certain that the list 
now submitted does not include the names of all omitted Cherokee 
children. Several full-blood Cherokee settlements have not as yet 
been thoroughly canvassed. If any provision be made for adding 
names of minors to the Cherokee rolls, it should provide for a further 
field examination. It seemed of doubtful propriety, after the general 
conditions had been developed, to continue the investigation, which 
might, because of litigation, be entirely futile. The case of T^vi B. 
Gntts et al. v. The United States is now pending in the Supreme 
Court. The purpose of that litigation is to secure a ruling that minor 
diildren placed upon the Cherokee roll under the supposed authority 
of the act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 137), were improperly enrolled 
and shall jiot be recognized to share in the distribution of the tribal 
property. If the contention be sustained, no names of the class 
involved there should be added to the Cherokee rolls. In fact, the 
niling may be held by analogy to prevent the addition of similar 
classes to the rolls of the other nations. 

List 4, Chickasaws, shows the names of 8 persons of Chickasaw 
blood and 1 freedman, all except 1 being minors. The rolls of the 
Chickasaws by blood contain 5,908 names, and the roll of Chickasaw 
freedmen contains 4,853 names. The percentage of omissions is ex- 
ceedingly small, and in fact negligible. 

List 5, Choctaws, shows the names of 22 Choctaws by blood, of 
5 Mississippi Choctaws. and 1 intermarried Choctaw. The approved 
rolls contain the names of 18,766 persons enrolled as citizens by 
blood, 1,643 persons enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws, and 1,672 en- 
rolled as citizens by intermarriage. The percentage of omissions in 
each of these classes is very small, and in fact negligible. 

List 6, Choctaw freedmen, shows the names of 281 persons, all 
minors except 4. #The approved roll of minor Choctaw freedmen 
contains 473 names. The large percentage of omissions in this class 
is explained elscAvhere. It is quite probable that there are others of 
this class whose claims have not yet been presented or disclosed". 

September 11, 1907, the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
was directed to prepare a list giving the names of persons whom 
his records showed were legally entitled to enrollment and were 
omitted through oversight on the part of the Government. ITnder 
date of November 15, 1907, in pursuance of these instructions, he 
submitted a list containing the names of 52 persons. A copy of this 
report and the list therewith was transmitted to the chairman of 
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate with the Secretary's 
letter of Februarj^ 12, 1910, and is printed in the report of hearings 
before the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representa- 
• tives. Sixty-first Congress, second session, on H. R. 19270, II. R. 
19552, and H. R. 22830. No attempt was made in the recent investi- 
gation to take up and examine each of these cases, but testimony was 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



44 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

f (resented in some of them, and that fact is noted in each case in the 
ists herewith submitted. 

Testimony was taken in the field in behalf of Jennie Cloud, whose 
name is the first in said list of 52, and from the facts thus developed 
it seems clearly established that Jennie is on the approved CheroKe© 
roll opposite No. 20799 as Jennie Crittenden, 32 years old, female, 
full blood. 

Testimony was also presented in behalf of Maggie Beamer, which 
indicates strongly that this child is already enrolled as a Cherokee 
citizen by blood at No. 18248, under the name of Maggie Hair, 7 
year old, female, full blood. 

It would seem, therefore, that any provision for adding any names 
on the list of 52, or any names on the lists submitted herewith, to 
the final rolls, should contain a condition that the Secretary of the 
Interior may refuse to enroll any of such persons whom he may 
determine not entitled to enrollment, either because of bein^ already 
upon the final rolls, or not possessed of the necessary qualifications 
for enrollment. 

Copies of the testimony taken in the course of this investigation 
were furnished to the principal chief of the Seminole Nation and the 
attorneys for the other nations, respectively, that they might be ad- 
vised in the premises. 

It had been rumored that many persons in prisons and in insane 
asylums, and children in orphan asylums or institutions, had been 
omitted from the final rolls because no applications had been pre- 
sented in their behalf. After a preliminary examination had been 
made Mr. Dixon H. Bynum, chief clerk in the office of the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, was requested to make a full 
investigation. His conclusion, as set out in a report of January 27, 
1911, copy herewith, is that no person confined in a penal institution 
at a time which would have prevented him from making application 
in his own behalf has been overlooked, and that minors and incom- 
petents in eleemo^nary institutions have been taken care of, with 
few exceptions. The names of the two boys stated to be in the Chero- 
kee Orphan Home at Pryor are to be found at Nos. 7 and 8 of list 
3 herewith. The name of Mattie Byrd, a Creek, in the Creek Orphan 
Home at Okmulgee, is to be found at No. 13 of list 2. The four 
Archibald children in the Murrow Indian Orphan Home are found 
at Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, of list 2. 
Very respectfully, 

W. C. Pollock, Assistant Attoimey. 



Exhibit 1. 

List of Persons Apparently Entitled to Enrollment in the Seminole 
Nation, but Whose Names Were Omitted Because No Appucation Was 
Made ob by Reason of Mistake or Oversight. 

seminoles by blood. 
1 Albert Johnson 

Born March 7, 1902; Uviug October 22, 1910; male: five-eighths Indian 
blood — one-half Creek and one-eighth Seminole. Fnther: Prince Albert,. 
Creek roll. No. 7160; full blood. Mother: Lucy Chupco. Seminole roll. 
No. 1414; one-fourth blood. Child was living in the Creek Nation and 
was overlooked by the Seminole Band chief when the Seminole rolls were 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 45 

2. Davis, Ljna. 

Bom March 3, 1905; livlog December 19, 1910; female; three-fourtlw 
blood. Father: Thompson Davis, Seminole roll, No. 1277; full blood. 
Mother: Lucinda Davis, formerly Taylor, Seminole roll. No. 167; one- 
half blood. 

2. Hulwa, Coba. 

Bom October 27, 1904; living November 9, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: John Hulwa. Seminole roll. No. 1768; full blood. Mother: Sally 
Hulwa, Seminole roll, No. 1769; full blood. 

4. Jones, Joseph S. 

Bora January 1, 1905 ; living December 29, 1910 ; male ; one-fourth blood. 

5. Jones, E^dwabd. 

Bora January 1, 1905; died ^ July 30. 1905; male; one-fourth blood. 
Father: David O. Jones; white. Mother: Selder Jones, Seminole roll, 
No. 329 ; one-half blood. 

6. Paddy, Elsie. 

Bora March 4, 1903; living October 31, 1910; female; full blood. 
• Father: Levi Paddy, or Cheparney, Seminole roll. No. 1574; full blood. 
Mother: Mesale, Seminole roll, No. 480; full blood. 

7. TiGEB, Willie, 

Bora March 29, 1904; living November 21, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Peter Tiger, Seminole roll. No. 71; full blood. Mother: Mary 
Tiger, formerly Johnson, Seminole roll. No. 1380; full blood. 

8. Washington, Witness. 

Bora April 15, 1904 ; died September 16, 1905 ; male ; full blood. Father : 
George Washington, Seminole roll. No. 413 ; full blood. Mother : Hepsey 
Washington, Seminole roll. No. 414 ; full blood. 



Exhibit 2. 

List of Persons Apparently Entitled to Enrollment in the Creek Nation 
BUT Whose Names Were Omitted Because no Application Was Made ob 
BT Reason of Mistake ob Ovebsight. 

cbeeks by blood. 

1. Allen. Wootsy. 

Bora "before March 4, 1906"; living; male; one-half blood. Father: 
Jesse Allen; white; noncitizen. Mother: Myrtle May Allen. Creek roll, 
No. 10175: one-eighth blood. No explanation of failure to enroll. 

2. Abchibalo or Xabchubby, Smedlow. 

Born about 1900; male; full-blood Indian, half Creek and half Choctaw. 

3. Abchibalo or Narchupby, Cain. 

4. Abchibalo or Nabchubby, Abel. 

Twins; bom about 1902; male; full-blood Indians, half Creek and half 
Choctaw. Father: Allen Archibald or Narchubby, full-bloOd Choctaw, 
who died prior to September 25, 1902, and therefore not enrolled. 
Mother: Sallie Narchubby, Creek roll, No. 814G; full blood. Brothers of 
Ellis and Sissy Narchubby, Creek roll, Nos. 8147 and 8148, full bloods. All 
living flt date of investigation, Novemt)er, 1910. 

5. Abcuibald or Narchubby, Adda. 

Bora about lOai; living November, 1910; female; one-half blood. 
Father: Unknown; white. Mother: Sallie Narchubby, Creek roll, No. 
8146; full blotKl. Sister of Ellis and Sissy Narchubby, Creek roll, Nos. 
8147 and 8148. 

6. Asbuby, Coo-wees-coo-wee. 

Bora March 18, 1902; living November 15, 1910: male; full blood. 
Father: Thomas Asbury. Creek roll, No. 7605: full blood: died Decem- 
ber 25, 1904. Mother: Sallie Johnson, Creek roll. No. S726: full blood. 
The mother testifies to the birth of the child and says that she supijosed 
it was on the rolls. It further appears that the mother did not apply 
for her own enrollment or select her own allotment The child was 
present at the hearing, November 15, 1910. Digitized by V^OOglC 



46 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

7. Babnett, Peggy. 

Died July 3. 1800. about 60 years old; female; full blood. Was on 
both 1890 and 1895 rolls of Creek Nation. Her children were enrolled, 
but it was understood Peggy died prior to April 1. 1899. No testimony 
was taken by the Dawes Commission in her case. Testimony submitted 
November 2(5, 1910, shows she did not die until July 3, 1899. 

8. Beab. Lucinda. 

Born Sei)tember — .1905; living February 15, 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Mnrche Bear. Creek roll. No. 3924; full blood. Mother: Nettie 
Bear, not identified on Creek roll. No application and no explana- 
tion of failure to make one. 

9. Billy, Chotekey. 

Born about 1900; died January 17, 1910; female; full blood. Father: 
Lumber Billy. Creek roll. No. 9746; full blood. Mother: aNncy Billy, 
Creek roll. No. 9749; full blood. Other children are on the Creek roll. 

10. BiRDCREEK, Lewis. 

About 10 years old January, 1911; living; male; full blood. Father: 
Jesse Birdcreek, Creek roll. No. 4623; full blood. Mother: Mandy Bird- 
creek, Creek roll. No. 4624; full blood; dead. Father belongs to Snake 
faction ; opposed to allotment. 

11. Brown, Hannah. 

About 6 years old January, 1911; living; female; full blood. Father: 
Co-ten-ney Brown, dead; can not Identify him under that name. 
Mother : Ya-can-co-thta Brown, dead ; can not Identify her under that name. 

12. Brown, Sam. 

Born February 29, 1906; living November 16, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Wilson Brown, Creek roll. No. 6S07; full blood. Mother: Sallle 
Brown, formerly Tiger. Creek roll. No. 13S0: full blood. The child was 
present at the hearing. 

13. Chupco, Mollie. 

11 years old December, 1910; living November 18, 1910; female; five- 
eighths Indian blood, one-half Creek, and one-eighth Seminole. Father: 
Johnny Chupco, JSemlnole roll. No. 1413; one-fourth blood. Mother: 
Tx)ulsa Lasley Chupco, Creek roll. No. 9356, as Louisa Lasley; full blood. 
No application for enrollment 

14. CosAR, Susie. 

Born July 18, 1898; living November 14, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: George Cosar. Creek roll. No. 8769; full blood. Mother: Lucinda 
Cosar, Creek roll. No. 8770; full blood. Father opposed to enrollment; 
was enrolled without application and arbitrarily allotted. 

15. Downing, Ambrose. 

About 20 years old and living November 15, 1910; half blood. Father: 
Barney Downing, full-blood Creek. Mother: Early Downing: white. 
Both father and mother died many years ago and before enrollment. It 
api)ears that application was made July 28. 1904. for enrollment of Am- 
brose Downing, and denied because be was not IdentlTled on any tribal 
rolls of the Creek Nation and had never been admitted to citizenship by 
the tribal authorities. It appears from testimony taken November 15, 
1910. and the further examination of the records that Ambrose Downing 
attended the Creek Orphan School located at Okmulgee In the year 1895. 
It is further shown that Ambrose Downing was recognized as a member 
of the Creek Tribe and paid his share of tribal payment of $200,000 by 
direction of the national council November 8, 1807. It Is clear that Down- 
ing falknl of enrollment because this record of recognition of his right 
by the Creek National Council was not brought to the attention of the 
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. 

16. Fish. Eli. 

About 14 years old December. 1910; living November 18. 1910; male; 
full blood. Father: Wlleyumka Fish, enrolled as *' Wllyumkn," Creek 
roll. No. 9382 ; full blood. Mother : Sulla Fish, enrolled as ** Sylla," 
Creek roll, No. 9388; full blood. Other children enrolled; no explana- 
tion of failure to enroll this, the youngest. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 47 

17. Fish, Willie. 

Bom June, 1905; living December 14. 1910; male; seven-eighths blood. 
Father: Ellmer Fish, Creels roll. No. 4719; three-fourths blood. Mother: 
Millie, enrolled Millie Fields, Creek roll, No. 7070; full blood. Parents 
separated and no application made for the child. 

Bom June 17, 1905; died July 7. 1907; female; full, blood. Father: 
Noah Foster, Creek roll, No. 477; full blood. Mother: Jeanette Foster. 
Creek roll. No. 3907, as Jennette Johnson; full blood. This name is in 
the list of 52 reported November 15, 1907. 

19. GiviNs, Luther. 

Bora February 2, 1905; dl^ September 1, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Choctaw Givins, Creek roll. No. 0797; full blood. Mother: 
Kizzie Givins, Creek roll, No. 6798; full blood. The child was sick when 
enrollment of others was made and could not be taken before the en- 
rolling olScer. 

20. Green, Jeanetta. 

About 18 years old January 21, 1911; then living; female; full blood. 

21. Green, Siah. 

About 15 years old January 21, 1911; then living; male: full blood. 
Father: Bennie Green, enrolled i\s Heneha Fixico, Creek roll. No. 8215; 
full blood. Mother : Lucy Green, Creek roll. No. 8301 ; full blood ; died in 
1901. Clearly Creeks and should have been enrolled. 

22. Johnson, Addie. 

About 9 years old and living December 8. 1910; female: full blood. 
Father: Colberson W. Johnson, Creek roll. No. 4031; full blood. Mother: 
Millie Johnson, Creek roll. No. 4032; full blood. Sister: Katie Johnson, 
Creek roll, No. 9408;. full blood. This child was present at the taking of 
testimony December 8, 1910. The father is dead and the mother states 
that she did not learn the child could be enrolled until too late. No 
application was made. 

23. Jones, Martha. 

Born March 1. 1905; living November 28, 1910: female; full blood. 
Father: Sulloly Jones, Creek roll. No. 7819; full blood*. Mother: T..eah 
Taylor Jones, Creek roll, No. 9305, as I^ah Taylor; full blood. Parents 
separated before child was bom, and the mother made no effort for its 
enrollment. 

f4. Lasley, Sulphur. 

Bora Januni-y 27, 1900; living January 25, 1911: male; full blood. 
Father: Colbert Lasley, Creek roll, No. 5133; full blood. Mother: Winey 
Ljisley, Creek roll, No. 5134; full blood. Jesse McDermott, Interpreter 
for the Creek Nation, testified January 27, 1911. that he was witl^ the 
Creek enrolling party in January, 1900, and called at the house of Winey 
Lasley, and there made out a birth affidavit for this child, then about 
2 hours old, and that he saw that affidavit in the office of the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes about "two years ago." He further 
stated the child was living January 25, 1911. 

26. Lasley, Tobe. 

Al)out 27 years old: living November 16. 1910: male: full blood. 
Father: Wylie lasley; full-blood Creek, who died prior to enrollment by 
the Dawes Commission. Mother: Linochee. full-blood Creek, who also 
died too early to be enrolled by the Dawes Comndssion. It appears from 
the testimony taken and the records of the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes that the applicant was lis cd for enrollment on Creek 
Indian card field. No. 3071, under the nume of Tobe Wylie. At the same 
time there appeared on the rolls of the Creek Nation another Tobe Lasley. 
and it was determined when the Creek rolls were prepared that these 
two names represented one and the same person, and the name of the 
applicant herein was stricken from card No. 3071. It now appears that 
these names did not represent one and ^he same i>erson. but that the 
applicant belongs to an entirely different fandly from the Tobe Lasley 
who is on the Creek rolls; jind further that the api>llcnnt is living as a 
member of Oakchaye town, enrolled on the 1MK> Creek roll as Tobe 
Willie, and on the 1895 Creek roll, a' No. 77, as Toby Lasley. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



48 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

26. Laslet, Tustunnuga. 

About 12 yeara old November 14, 1910; then living; male; full blood. 
Father: Alex Lasley, full-bluo<l Creek, who died before enrollment. 
Mother: Jeannetta Thompson, Creek roll, No. 8490; full blood. The 
mother was of the Snake faction, opposed to allotment, and made no 
application for the child. The child was present when the testimony wa» 
taken. 

27. Lewis, Sampson. 

About 21 years old November 14, 1910; then living; male; foil blood. 
Father : Seaborn Lewis, foil blood : died about the time enrollment work 
in the Creek Nation began, and was not enrolled. Mother : Little Kizzie ; 
died a few days after birth of Sampson. This applicant is the child of 
Creek Indians, but seems to have had no home nor any friend sufficiently 
interested to present his name to the Dawes Commission for enrollmait. 

28. Long, Lucy, 

About 8 years old December 19, 1910; then living; female; full blood. 
Father : Long George, Creek roll. No. 793 ; full blood. Mother : Ekoconney, 
Creek roll, No. 680S; full bloml. No ai)plication made for this child's 
enrollment. No explanation of failure. 

29. MuLLY, Jennie (Chinhoker). 

Sixty years old; living; Deoeiiiher 13, 1910; female; full blood. 

30. MuLLY, Mitchell. 

Thirty years old at time of death in 1909; male: full blood. 

31. MuLLY, Barney. 

Twenty-nine years old; living December 13, 1910; male; full blood. 

32. MuLLY, Simon. 

Twenty years old at time of death in 1909; male; full blood. Jennie 
and Barney were present at the hearing December 13, 1910. It ap- 
pears that Jennie Mully (or Chinhoker) is a full-blood Creek Indian 
about 60 years of age, and that she is Identified upon the 1800 authenti- 
cated roll of Indian citizens by blood of the Creek Nation, Ketchapatoka 
town, page 133, as Chimarhokee. and on the 1895 roll, same town, at No. 
158, as Chimhoka. It further appears that Mitchell. Barney, and Simon 
Mully are • full-blood Creek Indians, the children of the said Jainie 
Mully, and one Mullie Nicco, now dead, whose name appears on the final 
roll of citizens by blood of the Creek Nation opposite roll No. 10107 ; that 
they are identified on the 1S[M> authentic roll of Indian citizens, Ketchopa- 
taka town, page 133. as " Ma-jai-la," ** Par-na," and ** Sar-ma," and on 
the 1895 roll, same town, ojiposite Nos. 159, 160. and 161. as Mitchell 
Barney, and Simon, respectively. It further appears that they were 
listed for enrollment on Creek Indian field card. No. 3172, May 23, 1901; 
that Barney Mully is 2J» years of age and now living; that Mitchell 
. Mully died in 1909, about 30 years of age, and that .Simon Mully died in 
1909, aged 23 years. It further ippears that on February 20, 1907, the 
Commissioner of the Five Civilized Tribf^s. having been unable to secure 
any information concerning these parties, dismissed their application 
(the listing of their names on the census card being considered an appli- 
cation) on the ground that *' they died prior to April 1, 1899, or because 
of nonresidence. or because they had been enrolled under some other 
names." On the list of 52. 

83. Mully, Katie. 

Bom August 8, 1904: living December 13, 1910; female; full-blood 
Indian, five-eighths Creek and three-eighths Cherokee. Father: Barney 
Mully; full-blood Creek. Mother: Fannie Mully, enrolled as Fannie 
Banty. Cherokee r<»ll, N«». ;;04ti7, seven-eighths blood; testified that she 
is thiee-fourths Cherokee and one-fourth Creek. Child present at hear- 
ing. No application was made for her enrollment. 

Nabchubby. See Archibald. 

34. Pebby, James. 

About 35 years old and living November 14, 1910: probably full blood. 
Father: Gibson Perr>'. an Indian, but it Is not definitely shown whether 
a Chickasaw or a Creek. Mother: Kunnussa, shown to be a Creek, a 
member of Okfuskee town, who <lied long prior to enrollment James bad 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 49 

lived substantially all his life in the Creek Nation, and testified through 
a Creek interpreter, not being able to speak the English language. No 
application appears of record. James Perry's two wives were both 
Creeks, and relatives on his mother's side are enrolled. 

85. Pebbt, Susie. 

Bom November 10, 1905; living November 14, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Jim Perry, Creek-Chlckasaw ; not enrolled. Mother: Peggy 
Perry, enrolled as Peggy Henry, Creek roll. No. 8633; full blood. No 
application for enrollment of this child within the time provided by law. 
The parents separated about the time of her birth. 

36. Polk, Siah. 

About 11 years old November 14, 1910; then living; male; full blood. 
Father: Daniel Polk, Creek roll, No. 6846: full blood. Mother: Annie 
Billy, Creek roll No. 9167 ; full blood. Annie claims she was married to 
Daniel Polk, while he says they were not married. The child has be&a 
in the custody of the mother all the time. No application was made for 
his enrollment. The child was present at the hearing. 

37. Proctor, Freeman. 

Bom February 10, 1906; living November 17, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Lumber Proctor, Creek roll. No. 8792; full blood. Mother: Lena 
Proctor, Creek roll. No. 6863, as Lena Smith ; full blood. No application 
for enrollment was made. The mother says they were told the child was 
bom too late. 

38. Proctor, Maxie. 

Died about 1901 at the age of 6 years; male. Father: Hopiyoche 
Proctor, on the roll of citizens by blood of the Creek Nation, No. 7899, 
as "Hopiyoche"; full blood. Mother: Slumker Proctor, on the roll of 
citizens by blood of the Creek Nation, No. 7900, as "Slumker"; full 
blood. This couple has on the roll two sons, Caesar and Huethlego, Nos. 
7901 and 7902, and also a daughter, Sarah Proctor, No. 10003. The 
testimony is to the effect that this boy, Maxie, died about three years 
before the loyal Creek payment, which was made in 1904. It seems 
clear that he was living March 1, 1899, <and therefore should have been 
enrolled. It seems this boy's name was omitted by oversight. The 
father testifies that he did not select his own allotment, and that the 
entire family was arbitrarily allotted by the commission. 

39. Raiford, Washington. 

Bom October 8, 1905; died December 25, 1908; male; three-eighths 
Indian blood, one-eighth Creek, and one-fourth Seminole. Father: Ossie 
Rniford, Creek roll, No. 5696; one-quarter blood. Mother: Sellna Rai- 
ford. Seminole roll. No. 1410 ; one-half blood : died February 26, 1906. No 
record of an application to enroll this child, though the father claims 
he made one. 

40. Ralston, Elva Leona. 

About 11 years old November 30, 1910 ; then living ; female ; one-eighth 
blood. Bother: Benjamin F. Ralston, Creek roll, No. 10152; one-fourth 
blood. Mother : Maggie Ralston ; ncAicitizen. Six prothers and sisters of 
this child are on the rolls. Application was made for this child's enroll- 
ment, but no action taken because the enrollment of the father was not 
approved until March 4, 1907. 

41. Ralston, Fred E. 

Bom January 18, 1903; living December 2, 1910; male; one-eighth 
blood. 

42. Ralston, Jeanetta Louise. 

Born January 24, 1906; living December 2, 1910; female; one-eighth 
blood. Father : John F. Ralston, Creek roll. No. 10164 ; one-fourth blood. 
Mother : Florence May Ralston ; white. Two sisters of these children are 
enrolled. There Is no record of an application for enrollment of these 
two claimants, though the father states he understood application was 
made for them. 

69282—13 4 - 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



50 FIVE CIVILIZED XBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

43. RlLEY, Washie. 

About 10 years old Xovember 18, 1910; then living; male; full blood. 
Father : Cheesie Riley, Creek roll, No. 4536 ; full blood ; died September, 
1909. Mother : Maley EUey, Creek roll, No. 4537 ; full blood ; died prior to 
September, 1909. No application for enrollment was made until a guar- 
dian was appointed after the death of the parents and after the rolls had 
been closed. The child was present at the hearing. 

44. Scott, Mabt. 

About 15 years old November 28, 1910; then living; female; full blood. 
Father: Haney Scott, Creek roll No. 8158; full blood. Mother: Narch- 
ker Ilaney, Creek roll, No. 8456; full blood. The older children of this 
family are on the Creek roll. The mother states that their town leader 
made application for the family's enrollment, and that the huHbnnd and 
father was opposed to enrollment and allotment, allotments to the family 
having been arbitrarily made. 

45. ScBEECUOWL, Annie. 

Thirty-live years of age; living December 13, 1910; female; full blood. 
It appears that this woman is married to a Cherokee and was listed on 
a census card with him and six of their children, but was denied enroll- 
ment in the Cherokee Nation because she was a Creek, this action of the 
Commissioner to the Five Tribes being approved by the Secretary of the 
Interior March 4, 1907. The testimony clearly shows that this woman 
is of Creek Indian blood. She claims both of her parents were full-blood 
Creeks, though some of the testimony Indicates that the father was half 
Creek and half Cherokee. The applicant was recognized by the Creek 
authorities and participated in some payments of Creek money. She 
was denied opi)ortunlty to enroll as a Creek by reason of the late action 
upon her api>llcatlon for enrollment as a Cherokee. 

46. SCREECHOWL, CONCHABTY MiCCO. 

About years old December 13, 1910; then living; male; full blood. 
Father: Thompson Screechowl, Cherokee roll. No. 32880; full blood. 
Mother: Annie Screechowl, full-blood Creek, but not enrolled. No ex- 
planation is given for failure to apply for enrollment of this child as a 
Cherokee under the act of April 20, 1JKK». It is disclosed by the testi- 
mony, however, that the father is dead, the date of death not being 
shown, and that the mother belonged to the Snake faction of Indians, 
opiK)Slng enrollment and allotment of their lands. 

47. Sim HON, Samuel. 

Bom August — , 1899; living November 16, 1910; male, full blood, 

48. Simmons, Della. 

Born in December, 1901; living November 16, 1910; female; full blood. 

49. Simmons, Mandy. 

Bom February 2, 1903; living November 16, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Charley Simmons, Creek roll. No. 7829; full blood. Mother: 
Dochee Simmons. Creek roll. No. 7830 ; full blood. The father states that 
he does not know who made application for his enrollment; that he did 
not have enough money to go»to Muskogee, and did not make any appli- 
cation for himself; and that he and his wife were arbitrarily allotted. 
This Is the only explanation given for failure to api)ly for the children. 
All these children were present at the hearing. 
^. Simpson, Geoboe. 

Bom October 1, 1900; living November 17, 1910; male; full blood. 

51. Simpson, Nettie. 

Bom June 7, 1902; living November 17, 1910; female; fuU blood. 

52. Simpson, Maij.ie. 

Bom January 2, 1904; living November 17, 1910; female; full blood. 

53. Simpson, Mei.lissa. 

Bom February 4, 1906; died April 1, 1907 ; female; full blood. Father: 
Shelby Simpson, Creek roll. No. 9028 ; full blood. Mother : Lucy Simpson, 
Creek roll. No. 7069, as Lucy Field ; full blood George. Nettie, and Mallie 
were present at the hearing. The father belonged- to a disaffected faction 
and was opposed to allotment. He and his wife were enrolled by the 
Dawes Commission and arbitrarily allotted. , r-ki-km/> 

Digitized by VjOOQ Ic 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBXBES IN OKLAHOMA. 51 

54. Stanley, Wootsy. 

Born March 26,1905; living December 2,1910; female; one-eighth blood. 
Father: Charlefi A. Stanley; noncitlzen. Mother: Mattie E. Stanley, 
Creek roll, No. 10159; one-fourth blood. Three other children of Mattie 
E. Stanley appear on the Creek roll. The mother testifies that when 
she made application for Wootsy she was told It was too Tate. This Is 
the only explanation of the failure to make formal api)lication. 

55. Stahb, Motxie. 

About 26 years old at time of her death, December 30, 1906; female; 
full blood. Father: Robert Starr, Creek roll. No. 5596; full blood. 
Mother: Sama Starr; full blood; died prior to enrollment. It seems 
that the name of Mollie Starr was listed for enrollment on Creek Indian 
card No. 26S0; that Millie Starr, a sister, was on the same card; and 
that in making up the rolls these parties were considered to be one per- 
son and the name of Mollie was stricken from the card. For this reason 
her name was not placed upon the final rolls. The testimony shows 
clearly that there were two sisters of these names, and that Mollie lived 
until December 30, 1906. It Is also shown that some of her children are 
enrolled. 

56. Tekby, Alpha Omega. 

Bom February 15, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male; one-sixteenth 
blood. 

57. Tkbby, Albert. 

Born In March, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male; one-sixteenth blood. 
Father: William Terry; noncitlzen. Mother: Annette Josephine Terry, 
Creek roll No. 10174 ; one-eighth blood. No formal application was made 
for the enrollment of these chlldr«i, the reason given for failure being 
that the parents' enrollment was not approved until March 4, 1907. 

58. Wattte, Albert Wilue. 

About 10 years old November 16, 1910; then living; male; full blood. 
Father: Thomas Wattle, Creek roll, No. 8177; full blood. Mother: Polly 
Wattle, enrolled as Polly, Creek roll. No. 9140; full blood. Both parents 
dead. No application made for enrollment of the child by the Dawes 
Commission. Child was present at the hearing November 16, 1910. 

59. WtSJXY, Adv. 

About 8 years old November 21, 1910; then living; female: full blood. 
Father: Victor Wesley, Crek roll. No. 0668: full blood; dead. Mother: 
Elsie Wesley, Creek roll. No. 6669 ; full blood. Mother can not tell when 
she was married or when the child was born, except that it was about 
a month after the fatber was killed. A guardian was appointed for Ada 
in 1904. The child was present at the hearing November 21, 1910. 

60. West, Nellie. 

About 10 yenr<« old November 28, 1910 ; then living : female : full blood. 
Father: Lumsey West, Creek roll. No. 4944; full blood. Mother: Emma 
West, Creek roll. No. 4731, as Emma Hill; full blood. Both parents 
testify but give no reasons for failure to enroll the child, saying they 
thought she had been enrolled. Two of their children are on the roll. 
Nellie was present at the hearing November 28, 1910. 

61. White, Edmuno. 

About 14 years old and living November 16, 1910: full blood; male. 
Father: George White, Creek roll. No. 8359: full blood. Mother: Kate 
White, enrolled as Kate Tyler, Creek roll. No. 7800; full blood. The 
father testifies he thought he had applied for enrollment of this child. 
He Is shown by his testimony to be Ignorant and to know nothing con- 
cerning enrollment matters. 

62. Byrd, Mattie. 

About 12 years old and living November 16, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Thomas Byrd, Creek roll. No. 7876; full blood. Mother: Dudle 
Byrd, Creek roll. No. 7878 ; full blood. The only witness In this case was 
C. C. Gatlln, an uncle and the guardian of this child. The father died hi 
1903, and no explanation is given of failure to make application for this 
child. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



52 FIVE cnnuzED tribes in Oklahoma. 

creek freedmen. 

1. Adams, Freddie. 

Born August 17, 1905; living December 1, 1910; male. Father: Will 
Adams; noncitlzen. Mother: Hattie Rentie, enrolled as Hattle Colbert, 
Creek freedmen roll, No. 3550. The mother testifies to the birth of the 
child.* Her present husband testifies that he married the mother when 
the child was about 1 year old, and that the child has lived with him since 
then. A neighbor testified also to the birth of the child. The child was 
present at the hearing. 

2. Brown, Mosetta. 

Bom November 30, 1902 ; living November 26, 1910 ; female. Father : 
Ben Brown, Creek freedman roll, No. 2476. Mother : Annie Brown, Creek 
freedman roll, No. 2477. The mother, father, and a neighbor who acted 
as midwife, all testified to the birth of this child. This couple has eight 
children on the roll, and both stated that they understood the name of 
Mosetta, the youngest child, had also been placed on the roll, and knew 
nothing to the contrary until shortly before the hearing. They can give 
no explanation for the failure to secure this child's enrollment. 



Exhibit 3. 

List op Persons Apparently Entitled to Enrollment in the Cherokee 
Nation, But Whose Names Were Omitted Because No Application Was 
Made or by Reason of Mistake or Oversight. 

C 

ciierokees by blood. 
1 Aleck Buck 

Born May 31, 1902; living October 20, 1910; male; full blood. Father: 
John Aleck, deceased, Cherokee roll, No. 25596; full blood. Mother: 
Lydia Aleck, deceased, Cherokee roll, No. 25597; full blood. No prior 
application, because parents were opposed to enrollment 

2. Anderson, Stanley Q. 

Born November 17, 1903; livhig March 4, 1906; male; thirteen thirty- 
seconds blood. Father: Daniel Anderson, deceased, Delaware Cherokee 
roll. No. 99; three-fourths blood. Mother: Amanda Anderson, now Cans- 
dell, Cherokee roll. No. 10421; one-sixteenth blood. No application of 
record. The mother states that when she applied for another child, 
Luclle, she was under the Impression that her husband, then deceased, 
had made application for Stanley. 

3. Baldridge, John. 

Born August 15, 1905; living December 19, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: George Baldridge, Cherokee roll, No. 189S5; full blood. Mother: 
Alice Baldridge, Cherokee roll. No. 18986; full blood. No application 
of record and no explanation of failure, except that both parents are full- 
blood Indians. The child was present at the hearing December 19, 1910. 

4. Ballou, Dave. 

Born September 15, 1903; living February 2, 1911; male; seven-eighths 
blood. Father: Tom Ballou, Cherokee roll. No. 20716; three-fourths 
blood. Mother: Sallle Ballou, Cherokee roll. No. 20717; full blood. No 
application of record and no explanation of failure to present one. 

6. Beamer, Jennie. 

Born March 20, 1904; living January 19, 1911; female; full blood. 

6. Beamer, Ellis. 

Born February 22, 1906; living January 19, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: William Beamer. Cherokee roll. No. 20346; full blood. Mother: 
Lucy Beamer, Cherokee roll. No. 19780, as Lucy Smith; full blood. No 
application of record, the father being a " Nighthawk '* and opposed to 
enrollment. 

7. Bean, Charles. 

Born September — , 1904; living November 17, 1910; male;, full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Nancy Bean, deceased, Cherokee roll, No. 30480; 
full blood. Reputed father: Alex Downing, Cherokee roll. No. 15999; 
full blood. This child was found In the Cherokee Orphan Asylum. No 
application had been made under the act of 1906. 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 53 

8. BEA17, James. 

Born October — , 1902; living November 17, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Joe Bean, Cherokee roll, No. 30478; full blood; died Novem- 
ber — , 1905. Mother: Susannah Bean, Cherokee roll. No. 30479; full 
blood; died October — , 1904. This child was found in the Cherokee 
Orphan Asylum. The parents both being dead prior to the passage of 
the act of April 26, 1906, no application was made for this child. 

9. BiGFEATHEB, NaNCY. 

Bom June 10, 1903; living November 22, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: John Bigfeather, Cherokee roll, No. 18260; full blood. Mother: 
Polly Bigfeather, Cherokee roll, No. 18261 ; full blood. ChUd produced at 
the hearing November 22, 1910. The father says he did not bother about 
making application for this child ; that he did not believe in enrollment 
and did not want it 

10. Bitting, Edgab T. 

Bom July 17, 1905; living November 23, 1910; male; nine thirty-sec- 
onds blood. Father: William Bitting, Ctoerokee roll. No. 13928; one- 
sixteenth blood. Mother: Maggie Bitting, Cherokee roll. No. 27515, as 
Maggie Blair; half blood. Child present at the hearing November 22, 
1910. No application of record. The only explanation of failure Is given 
by the father, who says that he did not make application because not 
being able to get the affidavit of the midwife. 

11. Bbassfield, Alta Mat. 

Bora June 16, 1902; living December 9, 1910; female; one thirty-sec- 
ond blood. Father: John Brassfleld, Cherokee roll. No. 15360; one-six- 
teenth blood. Mother: Mary Brassfleld; noncltizen. Evidence of mar- 
riage September 17, 1896. Application, September 1, 1904, denied be- 
cause inhibited by section 30, act of July 1, 1902. On the list of 52. 

12. Bbead, Ben. 

Born April 10, 1903; Hving November 14, 1910; male; full blood. 

18. Bbead, Jennie. 

Bora May 24, 1905; living November 14, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Wilson Bread, Cherokee roll. No. 20778; full blood. Mother: 
Nannie Bread, Cherokee roll. No. 20779; full blood. No application of 
record. It seems to be simply a case of neglect by full-blood Indian 
parents. The children were present at the hearing November 14, 1910. 

14. Cameron, Andrew. 

Born September — , 1902; living December 3, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: John Cameron, Cherokee roll. No. 20870, as John Campbell; 
full blood. Mother: Olce Cameron, Cherokee roll. No. 20871, as Olce 
Campbell ; full blood. The child was present at the hearing December 3, 
1910. No application of record. When asked why application had not 
been made, the father said through an Interpreter: "Just because I was 
a full-blood Indian, I guess. I knew that they were enrolling them, but 
I can't say why I didn't." 

15. Gabet, Lesie. 

Born October 30, 1905; living November 15, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Clem Carey, Cherokee roll. No. 18279; full blood. Mother: 
Nellie Carey, Cherokee roll. No. 18280; full blood. The child was present 
at the hearing November 15, 1910. No application of record. The 
parents are separated, and the mother says she thought it was too late. 

16. Catcher, or Tehee, Charles, Jr. 

About 33 years old and living February 2, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: Charles Catcher, Cherokee roll, No. 180C9; full blood. Mother: 
Name not given ; died when applicant was about 1 year old ; full blood. 
Applicant testified through interpreter when asked why he had not made 
application before : *• 1 took my father's advice. My father has always 
refused to make application, and I followed him." When asked whether 
his father was enrolled, applicant answered : " I guess he Is on the roll. 
The officers came out there and arrested him and put him on the roll." 
Applicant's wife and several children are enrolled. 

17. Catron, Nancy. 

Born Kebriiaiy 7, 1904; livinj? November 22. 1910; female; seven- 
sixteenths blo(Kl. Father: John Catron, alleged to be a half-blood 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



54 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Cherokee, but not Identified on the Cherokee rolls. Mother: Nannie 
Carey, formerly Nannie Catron, enrolled as Crittenden, Cherokee roU, 
No. 32394; three-eighths blood. The child was produced at the hearing 
November 22, 1910. No explanation Is given for failure to make applica- 
tion previously for this child. 

18. C.\TRON, Peggy. 

Bom April 17, 1903; living December 2, 1910; female; eleven- 
sixteenths blood. Father: Toolie Catron, Cherokee roll, No. 29972: 
five-eighths blood. Mother: Mary Catron, Cherokee roll, No. 25924; full 
blood. The child was present at the hearing December 2, 1910. No 
application of record, the explanation being that the parents separated 
and the father became insane. 

19. Christian, Pearl. 

Bom February 14, 1902; living January 4, 1911; female; one-eighth 
blood. 

20. Christian, Willie. # 

Bom March 27, 1904; living January 4, 1911; male; one-eightb blood. 
Father: William T. Christian, Cherokee roll, No. 17944; one-fourtli 
blood. Mother: Belle Christian; noncitizen. The children were present 
at the hearing January 4, 1911. The- father states that he went to 
Muskogee once to have these children enrolled, but the commissioner told 
him the time for enrollment had expired. 

21. Christie, Frank. 

Bora March 25, 1905 ; living November 4, 1910 ; male ; full blood. Father : 
Watt Christie, Cherokee roU, No. 20946; full blood. Mother: Polly 
Charles, Cherokee roll. No. 20023; full blood. The child, an illegitimate, 
was present at the hearing November 4, 1910. The mother states she did 
not make application for enrollment of this child because she knew 
nothing about it. ^ 

22. Christie, James. 

About 10 years old and living December 1. 1910: male; three-fourths 
blood. Father: Goback Christie, Cherokee roll, No. 29158; three-fourths 
blood. Mother: Susan Christie, Cherokee roll. No. 29159; three-fourths 
blood. The chill was seen at the home of the father December 1, 1010. 
The parents were " Nighthawks '* and arbitrarily enrolled, this child being 
inadvertently omitted. 

23. Christie, Maggie. 

About 12 years old and living Deceml)er 1, 1910; female; seven-eighths 
blood. Father: George Christie, Cherokee roll. No. 26063: three-fourths 
blood. Mother: Lucy Christie, Cherokee roll. No. 26064; full blood. 
Several brothers and sisters of this child are enrolled. The child was 
seen at the home of her parents December 1, 1910. who are "Night- 
hawks," and refused to answer any questions or give any Information 
relative to the child. 

24. Chuctjlate, Gussie.. 

Born December 27, 1902; living January 31, 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Jim Chuculate, Cherokee roll. No. 20511; full blood. Mother: 
Nellie Bearpaw, Cherokee roll. No. 25707; full blood. No application of 
record, the explanation being that this child, an Illegitimate, was living 
with its grandmother, a "Nighthawk," at the time enrollment work was 
carried on. 

25. CnrcrLATE, William. 

Born February 9, 1905; living December 19, 1910: male; full blood. 
Father: Ice Chuculate, Cherokee roll. No. 25712; full blood. Mother: 
Katie Chuculate. Cherokee roll. No. 25713; full blood. The child was 
present at the hearing December 10, 1010. The father testifies that he 
attempted to apply for this child, but was told it was too late. 

26. Cochran, Daisy. 

Born October 8, 1005; living November 15. 3910; female: full blood. 
Father: Wind Cochran, Cherokee roll. No. 15319; full blood. Mother: 
Eliza Cochran. Cherokee roll. No. 18253, as Eliza Carey; full blood. 
No application of record, the father stating that he "thought it was 
too late." '; 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 55 

27. Coming, Samuel. 

Bora September 19. 1905; living January 19, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father : Joe Coming, Cherokee roll, No. 19404 ; full blood. Mother : Lizzie 
Coming, Cherokee roll, No. 19405; full blood. The child was present 
at the hearing January 19, 1911. The only explanation of failure to 
make application is by the father, who says : " I thought he was too late, 
and didn't get around to put him on the rolL" 

28. COOKINGHEAD, LUCY. 

About 7 years old, and living November 12, 1910; female; full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Sarah Daylight, Cherokee roll, No. 29806 ; full blood. 
Father: Jackson Cooklnghead, Cherokee roll. No. 29825; full blood. No 
application of record. 

28. Cbapoe, Mary Mildred. 

Bom October 10, 1905; living December 27, 1910; female; half blood. 
Father: Albert Crapoe, Cherokee roll, No. 21206; full blood. Mother: 
Mary Crapoe; noncitizen. The marriage is shown by witnesses. The 
father is dead, and the mother explains failure to make application by 
saying she knew nothing about it. The child was present at the hearing 
December 27, 1910. 

30. Crittenden, Osie. 

Born February 7, 1905; died March 18, 1906; male; seven-eighths 
% blood. Father: Alexander Crittenden, Cherokee roll, No. 18897; three- 
fourths blood. Mother : Katie Crittenden, Cherokee roll, No. 32515 ; full 
blood. No application of record and no explanation of failure to 
make one. 

3L Crittenden, William. 

Bora February 10, 1902; living December 12. 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Ned Crittenden, Cherokee roll, No. 16402; full blood. Mother: 
Carrie Crittenden, Cherokee roll, No. 16403; full blood. No application 
of record and the only explanation of failure is the statement of the 
father, " I just didn't want them enrolled." 

32. Dauoherty, Betsy. 

Bora July 15, 1903; living November 12, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father : Moses Daugherty, Cherokee roll, No. 19222 ; full blood. Mother : 
Linda Daugherty, Cherokee roll. No. 19223 ; full blood. The only explana- 
tion of failure to apply for this child's enrollment is the statement of the 
father, "I thought it was too late, and I was hurt and couldn't attend 
to it." The child was produced at the bearing November 12, 1910. 

33. Dirteater, Suagee. 

Bora December 29, 1904; living November 15, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Joe Dirteater, Cherokee roll. No. 18871; full blood. Mother: 
Mary Johnson Dirteater, Cherokee roll, No. 21342, as Mary Johnson; full 
blood. Parents separated, and the only explanation of failure to apply 
for this child Is the statement of the mother: "I thought we did. Sam 
Downing came around, and we talked to hlni about it." 

34. Downing, Laura. 

Bora September 1, 1903 ; living December 20, 1910 ; female ; full blood. 
Father: Eli Downing, Cherokee roll, No. 3771; full blood. Mother: 
Amanda Downing. Cherokee roll. No. 30059, as Amanda Needles; full 
blood. The child was present at the hearing December 20. 1010. The 
mother claims she made out papers for enrollment of this child, but 
apparently they never reached the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes. 

35. Dreadful wateb, Maggie. 

Born September 0. 100.">; died September 14, 1909; seven-eighths blood; 
female. Father: John Dreadful water, Cherokee roll. No. 18392; three- 
fourths blood. Mother: Mary Catron Dreadfulwater, Cherokee roll. 
No. 25924. as Mary Catron; full blood. No application of record. The 
only explanation of failure Is the mother's statement: "We were told 
that it was too late to enroll Maggie, and we didn't make any application." 

38. DEY WATEB, Pobteb. 

Bora November 6. 1905: living Noveml>er 21, 1910; male: full blood. 
Father: Samuel Dry water. Cherokee roll. No. 1HS02: full blood. Mother: 
Jennie Drywater, Cherokee roll, No. 18S03: full blood. The child was 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



56 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

present at the hearing November 21, 1910. The mother died whai the 
child was young, and he was given by the father to Betsy Campbell. 
The father states that he supposed Betsy would apply for the child's 
enrollment, and she supposed the father would, the result being that no 
application was made. 

37. Elk, Willie. 

Born March 1, 1906; living December 17, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Sam Elk, Cherokee roll. No. 19291; full blood. Mother: Nannie 
Elk, Cherokee roll. No. 32064, as Nannie Foreman ; full blood. The child 
was produced at the hearing December 17, 1910. No application because 
the father was a Nighthawk and opposed to enrollment. 

38. Feather, Grant. 

Born September 20, 1902; living November 12, 1910; male; half blood. 

39. Feather, Dolly. 

Bom November 11, 1905; living November 12, 1910; female; half blood. 
Father: Joseph Feather, Cherokee roll, No. 19138; full blood. Motber: 
Ada Feather; noncitizen. It seems the parents of these children were not 
ceremonially married, but were living together as husband and wife 
November 12, 1910, and had been so living for more than 10 years prior 
thereto. They have during all that period held themselves out to the 
world as husband and wife, and have been so recognized among their 
acquaintances. Under these conditions the child should take the status 
of the father in the matter of enrollment. 

40. Field, Pearle. 

Bom March 2, 1006; living January 17, 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Squirrel Fields, Cherokee roll. No. 3367; full blood. Mother: 
Nannie Fields, Cherokee roll, No. 29735 ; full blood. The child was produced 
at the hearing January 17. 1011. The mother, when asked why she did not 
make application previously for this child, answered only : " I don't know." 

41. Fisher, Ross Johnson. 

Born February 3, 1905; living January 7, 1911; male; three-fourths 
blood. Father: Johnson Fisher. Cherokee roll. No. 12285; half blood. 
Mother: Maggie Youngbird Fisher, Cherokee roll. No. 12530, ns Maggie 
Babbit : full blood. Child produced at the hearing January 7, 1911. The 
parents of this child separated soon after its birth, and the mother states 
she did not apply previously for enrollment of this child because she was 
told it was too late. 

42. Flute, Thompson. 

43. Flute, Johnson. 

Twins, bora September 30, 1903; living November, 1910; male; seven- 
eighths blood. Father: Charley Glory, Cherokee roll, No. 19864; three- 
fourths blood. Mother: Ilachel Christie, Cherokee roll. No. 20179; full 
bloo<l. The children were produced at the hearing November — , 1910. 
The mother explains the fact of these children going under the name of 
Flute by saying that their father abandoned her and she gave the chil- 
dren to her sister, Nancy Flute, who is raising them. She further 
states that she never applied for their enrollment and that her brother- 
in-law, who is raising them, is a ** Nighthawk," opposed to enrollment, 
and would not apply for them. 

44. GiRTY, Stan Field. 

Bom May — , 1901; living Dec. 30, 1910; male; seven-eighths blood. 
Illegitimate child of Jennie Gertie, Cherokee roll. No. 30111 ; full blooil. 
Reputed fjither: Robert B. Fields, ('herokee roll. No. .5931: three-fourths 
blood. The child was produced at the hearing December 30, 1910. The 
mother in her testimony, December 30, 1910, claims that she attempted to 
make application "to the Dawes Commission about three years ago." 

45. Gritts, Charles. 

Born November 14, 1905; died August 21, 1906; male; full blood. 
Father: Thomas Gritts, Cherokee roll. No. 25.354; full blood. Mother: 
Agnes J. Gritts. Cherokee roll. No. 251^55; full blood. The father says he 
did not make application because he thought the child was bora too late. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 57 

46. Guess, Nannie. 

Born May 10. 1905; living December 10, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Watie Guess, Cherokee roll. No. 18495; full blood. Mother: 
Addie Guess, Cherokee roll, No. 17974, as Addie Ratt; full blood. Child 
produced at the hearing December 10, 1910. The only reason given for 
failure to make application previously for tliis child Is the statement 
of the parents that they thought it was too late. 

47. Hair, Samuel. 

Bom February 2, 3903; living January 14, 1911; male: full blood. 
Father: Daniel Hair, Cherokee roll. No. 21401; full blood. Mother: 
Maude Hair, Cherokee roll. No. 26003; full blood. Child prodi'ced at the 
hearing January 14, 1911. The mother states that she left the matter of 
making application for this child to the father, who, however, died before 
taking any action. 

48. Hawkins, George. 

Bom March 3, 1903; living November 25, 1910; male; full blood. 

49. Hawkins, Peggy. 

Bom February 27, 1905; living November 25, 1010; female: full blood. 
Father: Josiah Hawkins. Cherokee roll. No. 18404; full blood. Mother: 
Eva Belle Hawkins, Cherokee roll. No. 38405; full blood. Children pro- 
duced at the hearing November 25, 1910. The father states that no ap- 
plication was made because he did not know anything about it. 

50. Henson, Enoch. 

Bora May 30, 1905; living November 18, 1910; male; fifteen-sixteenths 
blood. Father: Richard Henson. Cherokee roll. No. 12185; seven-eighths 
blood. Mother: Caroline Welch Henson, Cherokee roll. No. 17784. ns 
Caroline Welch; full blood. Child produced at the hearing November 
18, 1910. No explanation of failure to make application. 

61. Hicks, Ltdia. 

Bom September 17, 1905; living December 23, 1910; female: eleven- 
sixteenths blood. Father: George Hicks, Cherokee roll. No. lS(iVi2: R(>ven- 
eighths blood. Mother: Ida Hicks, Cherokee roll. No. 18693: half blood. 
Child produced at the hearing December 23, 1910. The father, when 
asked why no previous application had been made for this child, replied : 
** I never did anything about it. I Just let it run along." 

52. Hilderbband, John E. 

Bora October 31, 1905; living December 28, 1910; male: one-eighth 
blood. Father: John H. Hilderbrand, jr., Cherokee roll, No. 26995; one- 
quarter blood. Mother: Laura Hilderbrand; noncitizen. The mother 
applied for enrollment of this child May 25, 1906, which application was 
denied for lack of evidence of marriage of parents. It is found, however, 
that a certified copy of a marriage license and certificate showing the 
marriage of John Hilderbrand and I^ura Woods November 8. 1901, was 
then on file in the case of Nancy Ijouettie Hilderbrand, Cherokee roll. 
No. 26998, a sister of this child, John E. It appears, therefore, that the 
denial of the application In 1906 was a clear mistake. 

53. Hooper, John. 

Bora February 10, 1905; living November 12, 1910: male: full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Lizzie Frog, or Aisle Frog, Cherokee roll. No. 2r»0.54, 
full blood, the reputed father being Turkey Hooper, Cherokee roll. No. 
26746, full blood, the stepfather of Lizzie Frog. The child was produced 
at the hearing November 12, 1910. The mother says no application was 
made because .««he knew nothing about the matter. 

54. Houston. Jason. 

Bora July 27, 1902; living November 16, 1910: male; full blood. 
Father: Isaac Houston, Cherokee roll. No. 21337; full blood. Mother: 
Annie Houston, Cherokee roll, No. 21338 ; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing November 16, 1910. It seems that this couple had two chil- 
dren, Jason, the applicant here, .and Jesse, who was bora February 23, 
1905. In a former application these names became changed, and Jesse was 
enrolled when, as a matter of fact, the father thought he was applying for 
Jason. In any event, both these children seem entitled to enrollment. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



58 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

55. Johnson, Joe. 

Born April 1, 1905; living November 16, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: John Johnson, Cherokee roll. No. 21312; full blood. Mother: 
Lucy Johnson, Cherokee roll, No. 21313; full blood. ChlM produced at 
the hearing November 16, 1910. The father states that he madr no pi ior 
application because he thought it was too late. 

56. Johnson, Wilda. 

Bom July 18, 1903 ; living December 10, 1910 ; female ; full blood. 

57. Johnson, Polly. 

Bom September 6, 1905 ; living December 10, 1910 ; female ; full blood. 
Father: Mike Johnson, Cherokee roll. No. 18434. as Mike Waterfalling, 
Waterfalling t)eing the name of his stepfather, by whom applicatloii was 
made; full blood. Mother: Lucy Johnson, Cherokee roll, No. 1618G. as 
Lucy Arnold; full blood. The children were produced at the hearinf^ 
December 10, 1910. No explanation given of failure to make application 
for enrollment of these children. 

58. Keeneb, Coleman. 

Born January 26, 1905; living November 17, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Charles Keener, Cherokee' roll. No. 21271; full blood. Mother: 
Lucinda Keener, Cherokee roll. No. 21272; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing November 17, 1910. The father claims he made application 
for enrollment of this child and was told he would be notified when the 
time came to consider such cases. 

50. Keener, Hattie. 

Born August 22, 1901; living November 22, 1910; female; full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Polly Bigfeather, Cherokee roli. No. 18261; full 
blood. Reputed father: Joseph Keener, Cherokee roll. No. 16487; full 
blood. Child produced at the hearing November 22, 1910. The mother, 
when asked if she or anyone else had made application for this child to 
be enrolled, replied : ** I do not know. I don't believe in it." 

60. Keener, Lucy. 

Born September 24, 1905; living November 22, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Johnson Keener, Cherokee roll. No. 21427; full blood. Mother: 
Sarah Keener, Cherokee roll. No. 21426: full blood. The child was pro- 
duced at the hearing November 22, 1910. The parents belonged to the 
Nighthawk faction and were opfmsed to enrollment. 

61. Keener, Sampson. 

Born October — , 1903; living November 22, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: William Keener, Cherokee roll, No. 1S467; full blood. Mother: 
Lizzie Keener, Cherokee roll. No. 1S46.S; full blood. The child was pro- 
duced at the hearing Novenibpr 22. 1910. The parents belonged to the 
Nighthawk faction and were oi>iK)f?e<l to enrollment. 

62. Ketcuer. Andrew. 

About 20 years of age and living November 16, 1910; male; half 
blood. This man is allejjeil to be the son of one Mose Ketcher, a full- 
blood Cherokee Indian, who die<l prior to enrollment, and a white woman, 
long since dead. This couple IIvikI together only a short time. Andrew 
Ketcher, the applicant, Is Identified on Cherokee census roll of 1896 as 
No. 1942, being 15 years of age. Application for enrollment of Andrew 
was made to the Conunlsslon to the Five Civilized Tribes June 23, 1902. 
This application was finally *' dlsmls.sed without prejudice'* Febmary 
28, 1907, It being said In that decision that the CommlAsion and the Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes "have diligently sought Inforaia- 
tlon which would enable them to determine whether or not said appli- 
cant was living September 1. 1902; and If so. whether or not he was 
entitled to enrollment on that date. No information had been obtained 
tending to show the status of s^nd Andrew Ketcher on September 1, 
1902." The testimony then submitted showed that Andrew Ketcher had 
been convicted of some crime and sentenced to imprls<mment. February 
21, 1907, the warden of the United States Penitentiary at I^aveuworth 
adviseil the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes: "There Is no 
record In this j>enltentlary of Andrew Ketcher. One Ellis Ketcher, No. 
2105, was recelveil here from TahkHpiah, Ind. T., April 29, 1900, sen- 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 59 

tenced to five years for larceny. He was discharged June 16, 1903." 
These dates correspond with those given in the testimony as to the time 
the applicant was sent<mced to imprisonment and the time of his return 
to the Cherokee country. The proof that the applicant was living 
September 1, 1902, has been supplied. It is believed this man's case 
should receive favorable consideration. 

63. Kino, John. 

Bom September 18, 1S96; living January 17, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: Charley King. Cherokee roll, No. 29679; full blood. Mother: 
Mary King, deceased and not airolled, alleged to be full blood. This 
child was produced at the hearing January 17, 1911. The father testifies 
he did not apply for enrollment of himself or any of his family, but that 
a man named Dave Hair gave their names in and omitted John's. 

64. Kino, West. 

About 7 years old and living January 17, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: James King, Cherokee roll, No. 29681; full blood. Mother: 
Doilie King, formerly Dollie or Dillio Wofford, full-blood Cherokee, who 
has not been identified on the final rolls. This boy is a grandson of 
' Charley King, who testified that he was opposed to enrollment and did 
not give in the names of his family, and that no application was ever 
made for this boy, West King. 

65 ICntc ht Picnoic 

Born March 4, 1906; living November 4, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Benjamin Knight, Cherokee roll, No. 19972; full blood. Mother: 
Arlie Knight, Cherokee roll. No. 19973; full blood. The child was pro- 
duced at the hearing November 4, 1910. No application made for this 
child because the father was a Nighthawk and opposed to enrollment 

66. Leaf, Nancy. 

Bom March 14, 1905; living December 22, 1910; female; seven-eighths 
blood. Father : Jim Leaf, Cherokee roll. No. 19562 ; three-fourths blood. 
Mother: Nellie Leaf, Cherokee roll, No. 20624, as Nellie Silk; full blood. 
Child produced at the hearing December 22, 1910. No previous application 
because the parents were Nighthawks. 

67. Leaf, Sabah. 

Bom September — , 1905; living January 17, 1911; female; full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Nancy Hair, Cherokee roll. No. 29683, as Nancy 
King, the reputed father being Cooie-Scoole Leaf, alleged to be a full- 
blood Cherokee, who has not been identified on the final rolls. The child 
was produced at the hearing January 7. 1911. This applicant is a grand- 
daughter of Charley King, Cherokee roll, No. 29079, full blood, who testi- 
fied that he was opposed to enrollment and did not give in the names of 
any of his family. 

68. Lewis, Polly. 

Twenty years old and living January 18. 1911; female; full-blood. 
Illegitimate child of Eliza Wolfe, Cherokee roll, No. 32069, full blood, the 
father being one Joe I^wls, enrolled under the name of Joe Dlrteater, 
Cherokee roll. No. 18871, full blood. The applicant was produced at the 
hearing January 18, 1911. The stepfather. Pickup Wolfe, with whom the 
applicant is living, testified that he did not make application for enroll- 
ment of himself and members of his family, and that be d«>es not know 
who gave in their names. This child's name was omitted. 

69. LiVEB, John L. 

Bom April 1, 1905; living November 10. 1010; male: full blood. 
Father: Jackson Liver, Cherokee roll. No. 19028; full blood. Mother* 
Betty Liver, Cherokee roll. No. 2.">649: full blood. The child was pro- 
dnce<l at the hearing November 10. 1010. The father explains that ho 
did not make i>revlous api)llcati<)n because ho was under the belief it 
was too late. 

70. McCabtfr, Chablotte. 

Bom March 16, 1901 ; living December 13, 1010; female; full blood. 

71. McCABTfR, Sampson. 

Bom October — , 1903; living December 13, 1910; male; full blood. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



60 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

72. McCabteb, Nancy. 

Boni December 1, 1905; living December 13, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Clem McCarter, Ckerokee roll. No. 18898; full blood. Mother: 
Susie McCarter, Cherokee roll, No. 18899; full blood. No explanation 
given for failure to make previous application for these children. 

73. McCoy, Jack. 

Born February 26, 1904; living December 20, 1910; male; seven-eighths 
blood. Father: Alex McCoy, Jr., Cherokee roll. No. 21117; full blood. 
Mother: Yahni McCoy, Cherokee roll. No. 21118; three-fourths blood. 
The child was produced at the hearing December 23, 1910. The father 
testified that he made no application for this child because he was told 
it was too late. 

74. Martin, Hattie. 

Born January 15, 1905; living January 14, 1911; female, full blood. 
Father: John W. Martin, Cherokee roll, No. 12289; full blood. Mother: 
Lucy Martin, Cherokee roll, No. 20725, as Lucy Sequoyah; full blood. 
Child not produced at the hearing because she is ft paralytic. The father, 
when asked why he had made no application for Hattie, replied, "The 
reason why I never made any application for the child was, there was a 
squabble about the too-late children, and I never made any application." 

75. MiLLEB, j£NNIE. 

Born August 36. 1905; living December 19, 1910; female; half blood. 
Father: Tom Miller, noncitizen. Mother: Frances Johnson, Cherokee 
roll, No. 25699; full blood. The child was produced at the hearing De- 
cember 19 1910. The parents separated before the birth of the child, and 
no exi)lanatiou is given for failure to make application for her enrollment 

76. Mitchell, May. 

Born March 27, 1903; living December 22, 1910; female; one-eighth 
blood. Father: Thaddeus Mitchell, Chei-okee roll. No. 2669; one-fourth 
blood. Mother: Betty Mitchell; noncitizen. The child was produced at 
the hearing December 22, 1910. The mother testifies that they made 
application for this child with their other children and were required to 
secure an affidavit from the attending physician; that they then sent 
nn affidavit to him at Miami. Okla., with $1.25 to pay the expenses 
thereof, asking him to execute It and send It to the Dawes Commission; 
that the time for enrollment had expired before this affidavit was fur- 
nished. 

77. NoiSEWATER, French. 

Born October 28, 1905; living November 12, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: John Nolsewater, Charolsee roll, No. 28431; full blood. Mother: 
Jennie Nolsewater, Cherokee roll. No. 39045; full blood. Child produced 
at the hearing November 12, 1910. No explanation of failure to make 
application. 

78. Oakball, Elias. 

Born September 18, 1903; living December 10. 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: White Oakball, Cherokee roll, No. 30673; fu!l blood. Mother: 
Susan Oakball. Cherokee roll. No. 30674; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing December 10, 1910. No previous application because parents 
are Nighthawks and do not believe in enrollment. 

79. Palone, Nancy. 

Born AngiLst 4, 1904; living November 21. 1910; female; seven-eighths 
blood. Fa ♦ her: Andrew Palone, Cherokee roll. No. 25S54; full blood 
Mother: Jenanna Pumpkin, Cherokee roll. No. 18880; three-fourths blood. 
Child produced at the hearing November 21, 1910. No previous applica- 
tion, the parents being Nighthawks and opi)osed to enrollment. 

80. Pettit, Josie. 

About 18 years old and living January 13. 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Charlie Gulneahead, Cherokee roll. No. 19303; full blood. 
Mother: Jennie (lUlneahead, who died in 1895. alleged to be a full-biood 
Cherokee. The father of Josle Is also dead, and there Is no explanation 
for the failure to make application for her.* 

81. Phillips, Sinda. 

Born April 10, 1904; living December 27, 1910; female; full blood. 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 61 

82. Phllips, Olie. 

Born March 2, 1906; died May 10, 1908; female; full blood. Father: 
Arch PhiUips, Cherokee roll, No. 29124; full blood. Mother: Nancy 
Phillips, Cherokee roll, No. 29125; full blood. Sinda Phillips was pro- 
duced at the hearing December 27, 1910. This couple have seven chlldroi 
enrolled, and the father says no previous application was made for these 
two younger ones, because he did not know anything about it. 

83. PoTTEB, Walter. 

Bom February 13, 1906; living January l9, 1911; male; one-eighth 
blood. Father : Albert Potter ; noncitizen. Mother: Susie Potter, Chero- 
kee roll. No. 20254, as Susie Silcox; one-fourth blood. Child produced 
at the hearing January 19, 1911. No explanation of failure to make 
application. 

84. PoRTEB, J. George. 

Bom January 10, 1904; living December 19, 1910; male; half blood. 
Father : James M. Porter, Cherokee roll, No. 27247 ; full blood. Mother : 
Millie Porter, Intermarried white; no enrolled. Child produced at the 
hearing December 19, 1910. The marriage is proven by the fact cliat 
another child of this couple is enrolled. Myrtle Porter, No. 27248. Both 
parents are dead, and no reason is given for failure to make application 
for this child. 

85. Pumpkin, Ada. 

Born January 10, 1905; living January 5, 1911; female; seven-eighths 
blood. Fa; her: Frank Pumpkin, Cherokee roll, No. 6275; full blood. 
Mother: Annie Pumpkin, Cherokee roll, No. 18881; three-fourths blood. 
Child produced at the hearing January 5, 1911. The father claims he 
attempted to make application, but " they could not find her name on the 
record and wouldn't do nothing more about it." 

86. Rhodes, John. 

Bora Febraary 2, 1905 ; living November 15, 1910 ; male ; three-eighths 
blood. Father: Jim Rhodes; noncitizen. Mother: Ella Rhodes, Chero- 
kee roll. No. 23158, as Ella Cochran; three-fourths blood. Child pro- 
duced at the hearing November 15, 1910. The mother states that she 
made no application because she did not know anything about it 

87. Sack, Welling. 

Bora February 9, 1903; living December 9, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father : Jack Sack, Cherokee roll, No. 18186 ; full blood. Mother : Rachel 
Sack, Cherokee roll. No. 18187; full blood. No previous application 
because the father and grandparents, with whom the child Is living, are 
Nighthawks and opposed to enrollment. 

88. Sam, Katie. 

Bora November 7, 1905; living December 28, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Watt Sam, Cherokee roll, No. 21162; full blood. Mother: Mary 
Sam, Cherokee roll, No. 21102, as Mary Proctor ; full blood. Father testi- 
fies that he made no previous application because he never knew new 
boms were entitled to enrollment. 

89. Sanders, Kenneth. 

Bora October 2, 1902; living January 2, 1907; male; three-eighth* 
blood. Father: William E. Sanders, Cherokee roll. No. 11977; one- 
fourth blood. Mother: Etta J. Sanders, Cherokee roll. No. 11978; half 
blood. Application for enrollment of Kenneth Sanders was presented to 
the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes December 6, 1906, who 
refused to receive or consider the same because presented after the time 
fixed for receiving applications by the act of April 26, 1906. In the 
testimony heard by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes Janu- 
ary 2, 1907, the birth of this child and the fact that he was living at the 
date of the testimony were fully established. A notary public and wit- 
ness at that hearing testified that an affidavit as to the birth of this 
child was executed before him May 9, 1906, as shown by his record, and 
that he mailed said application to the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes at Muskogee on the same day. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



62 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

90. SCBAPEB, NaRCY. 

Born September 23, 1903; living December 16, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Ned Scraper, Cherokee roll. No. 2908S; full blood. Mother: 
Susie Scraper, Cherokee roll. No. 29089; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing December 16, 1910. Fathei* testifies that he filled out a 
paper to apply for enrollment and gave it to a notary public at Still- 
well to fix up for him, but never heard anything more about it. 

91. Shade,- Striker. 

Born February 26. 1903: living January 7, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: Bushyhead Shade. Cherokee roll, No. 20731; full blood. Mother: 
Ollie Shade, Cherokee roll, No. 20732; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing. No explanation given of failure to make previous applica- 
tion. 

92. SixKiLLEB, Harvey. 

Bom April 25. 1903; living December 19. 1910: male; full blood. 
Father : GafTord Sixkiller, Cherokee roll. No. 10245 : full blood. Mother : 
Susie Sixkiller, Cherokee roll. No. 19246; full blood. Child produced 
at the hearing December 19, 1910. The only explanation the father gives 
for failure to make application at tho proper time for this child is that 
he simply neglected it. 

93. Snell, Emma. 

Bom May 9, 1903; living January 19, 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Joshua Snell, Cherokee roll. No. 197r'6, as Joshua Snail: full 
blood. Mother: Lydia Snell, Cherokee roll. No. 19757, as Lydla Snail; 
full blood. The only statement as to previous application is that of the 
father January 19, 1911, that he wrote to the Dawes Commission "about 
a year ago," but received no answer. The mother was called on to give 
testimony, but positively refused, saying she was opposed to enrollment. 

94. SouRJOHN, Charlie. 

Bom November 1, 1904; living December 28, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Albert Sourjohn. Cherokee roll. No. 21038: full blood. Mother: 
Oo-lu-ja Sourjohn, Cherokee roll. No. 21039, as Oollj^ey Sourjohn; full 
blood. Child produced at the hearing December 28, 1910. The father 
states that he did not make application for this child, because he knew 
nothing about it 

95. Spade, liACEY. 

Born September 12, 1902; living November 4, 1010: female; full blood. 
Father: James Spade, Cherokee roll. No. 27063; full blood. Mother: 
Jennie Spade. Cherokee roll. No. 27034; full blood. The parents under- 
stood that an interpreter of the Commission to the Five Tribes had en- 
rolled this child. 

96. Spaniard, Myrtle May. 

Born August 29, 1905; living December 27, 1910; female; seven-eighths 
blood. Father: Jack Spaniard. Cherokee roll. No. 18064; three-fourths 
blood. Mother: Eliza Spaniard, Cherokee roll. No. 21204, as Eliza Crapo; 
full blood. Child produced at the hearing December 27, 1910. Irtespectiug 
a previous application, the father says, " I Just neglected it." 

97. Speaker. Sunday, or PfrrER. 

Sixty years of age; living November 30, 1910; male; full blood. It 
seems that application was made for this man June 30. 1902, and dis- 
missed December 27, 1905, for lack of information. This man is a fuP- 
blood Cherokee and is known as Sunday Speaker, Speaker Sunday, and 
Peter Speaker. It seems that he is also known in Cherokee as Gad-wa-si, 
the translation being Sunday; and also as Da-ca-na, the translation being 
Speaker. This Indian was clearly entitled to enrollment, and only failed 
to secure It because of his Ignorance and Inattention. 

98. Suake, Swimmer. 

Born September 22, 1904; living November 15, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father : Swimmer Suake, deceased. Cherokee roll. No. 20812 ; full blood. 
Mother: Katie Suake. Cherokee roll. No. 20813: full blood. Child pro- 
duced at the hearing November 15, 1910. The father is dead, and no 
explanation is offered for failure to make application for this child. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 68 

99. SULLATESKEE, LiZZIE MiLO. 

Bom June 7, 1904; died August 20. 1907; female; half blood. Father: 
Milo Brady; noncltlzen; white. Mother: Charlotte Sullateskee, Cherokee 
roll. No. 18549, now Charlotte Wall ; full blood. The mother, when asked 
why she had not made application for the enrollment of Lizzie, answered : 
" I don't know." She further states that Brady, the father, deserted her 
when the child was bom. 

100. Swimmer, Gbace. 

Bora September 5, 1904 ; living Januarj- 19, 1911 ; female ; full blood. 

101. SwiMMEB, Lincoln. 

Bora January- 10, 1900; died November 12, 1JH)9; male; full blood. 
Father: Thomas Swimmer, Cherokee roll. No. 20328; full blood. Mother: 
Charlotte Swimmer, Cherokee roll. No. 20322. as Charlotte Turtle; full 
blood. Both children produced at the hearing January 19, 1911. In 
explanation of failure to make application previously, the father says: 
•*I Just couldn't get to it." 

102. Tadpole, Betsy. 

Born March 17, 1903; living January 5, 1911; full blood. 

103. Tadpole, Lizzie. 

Born May S, 1905; living January 5, 1911; female; full blood. Father: 
Tiger Tadjwle, Cherokee roll. No. 6269; full blood. Mother: Sallle Tad- 
pole, Cherokee roll. No. 6270 ; full blood. Children produced at the hear- 
ing January 5, 1911. No explanation of failure to make application for 
enrollment of these children at the proper time. 

Tehee, Chables. See Catcher. 

104. Tehee, Eliza. 

Bora March 4. 1905; living December 17, 1910; female: full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Mary Tehee, Cherokee roll. No. 20349, full blood, the 
father being unknown. No explanation of failure to make application for 
this child. 

105. Thompson, Rebecca. 

Born January .3, 1900; living December 13, 1910; fenmle: full blood. 
Father: William Thompson, Cherokee roll. No. 9017; full blood. Mother: 
Eva Thotopson, Cherokee roll. No. 25J)18: full blood. The father and 
mother, who are Nighthawks, refused to give any information concerning 
this child, and the recommendation here Is based upon the testimony of 
Thomas P. Roach, official Cherokee interpreter at the Union Agency. 
The child was seen December 13, 1910, and appeared to be of the age and 
blood claimed. 

100. TiNoowiE, John. 

Born September 9, 1903; living November 26, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Ooyatuck Tiuoowie, Cherokee roll No. 19619; full blood. 
Mother: Nannie Tiuoowie, Cherokee roll, No. 19620; full blood. Child 
produced at the hearing November 26, 1910. In explanation of the failure 
to make application for this child it is said that the deceased father was 
a full blood who did not believe in enrollment, and that the mother knew 
nothing about it. 

107. ToNEY, Lala. 

Born August 7, 1903; living November 2, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: John Toney, Cherokee roll. No. 18750; full blood. Mother: 
Jennie Toney, Cherokee roll, No. 18751 ; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing November 2, 1910. The mother stated that the father of the 
child, now deceased, was a member of the Nighthawk Band and opposed 
to allotment. 

lOa TUBTLE, We«ley. 

About 6 years old and living December 30, 1910: male; full blood. 
Father: William Turtle, Cherokee roll. No. 20787; full blood. Mother: 
Sallle Turtle, Cherokee roll, No. 20r88; full blood. This couple and four 
children were arbitrarily enrolled, and the father now refuses to give 
any Information concerning this child. The recommendation here is 
based on the testimony of a neighbor and the appearance of the child. 
This couple has also a younger child. Young Turtle, who apparently, 
however, was born after March 4, 1906. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



64 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

109. Vann, Ice. 

Born October 29, 1905; living November 12, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Noname Vann, Cherokee roll, No. 18999; full blood. Mother: 
Slna Vann, Cherokee roll, No. 25G37 ; full blood. Child produced at the 
hearing November 12, 1910. No explanation given of the failure to make 
application for this child. 

110. Vann, Lillie. 

Born March 7, 1904; living January 24, 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Jesse Vann, Cherokee roll. No. 27178; full blood. Mother: 
Nancy Barker, formerly Nancy Vann, enrolled as Diana Holt, Cherokee 
roll. No. 30685; full blood. Child produced at the hearing January 24, 
1911. No explanation of the failure to apply for this child, though It is 
shown that the parents are separated. 

111. Vann, Maggie. 

Born February 4, 1903; living December 23, 1910; female; full blood- 
Father: Taylor Vann, Cherokee roll. No. 19516, as George Washington; 
full blood. Mother: Kizzie Vann, Cherokee roll. No. 19536, as Kizzie 
Houseberg; full blood. Child produced at the hearing December 23, 1910. 
The father while at the Dwight Mission School was given the name 
George Washington and arbitrarily enrolled under that name. He was 
a Niffhthawk and opposed to enrollment This Is the only explanation 
of failure to apply for the child. 

112. Vann, Thomas, Jr. 

Born January 12, 1906; living January 7, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: Tom Vann, Cherokee roll. No. 32572; full blood. Mother: Ida 
Vann, Cherokee roll. No. 12531, as Ida Rabbit ; full blood. The child was 
produced at the hearing January 7, 1911. No reason Is given for failure 
to make application for this child. 

113. Waterfallen, John. 

Born December 3, 1903; living November 16, 1910; male, full blood. 
Father : James Waterfallen, Cherokee roll. No. 25970 ; full blood. Mother : 
Wilda Waterfallen, Cherokee roll. No. 18816, as Lydia Johnson; full blood. 
Child produced at the hearing November 16, 1910. No prior application 
made by the father, because he was a Nighthawk. 

114. WaTEBS, ANnEBSON. 

Born October 1, 1904; living December 28, 1910; full blood; male. 
Father: Joe Wnters, Cherokee roll No. 29118; full blood. Mother: 
Hattle Waters, Cherokee roll, No. 29119; full Wood. Child produced at 
the hearing December 28, 1910. The father claims he made application 
for enrollment of this child and was told it was too late. 

115. Welch, Bessie. 

Born January 30, 1906; living November 18, 1910; female; fifteen- 
sixteenths blood. Father: John Welch, Cherokee roll, No. 21291; full 
blood. Mother: Maggie Whlteklller, Cherokee roll, No. 16538; seven- 
eighths blood. Child produced at the hearing November 18, 1910. It seems 
that John Welch and his wife Nancy separated at one time and he liveil 
for a while with Maggie Whlteklller, the result of that cohabitation 
being the child Bessie. In explanation of failure to make application 
for this child the father says : ** Jesse Wofford came around and said he 
would attend to it, but I guess he didn't." 

116. Welch, Simon. 

Born February 4, 1904; living November 18, 1910; male; full blood 
Father: John Welch, Cherokee roll. No. 21391; full blood. Mother: 
Nancy Welch, Cherokee roll, No. 21302; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing November 18, 1910. The only explanation of failure to 
make application is the statement of the father November 18, 1910 : 
*' Jesse Wofford came around and said he would attend to it, but I guess 
he didn't." 

117. West, Sallie Ellen. 

Born September 12. 19<»5: living January- 14, 1911; female; one-fourtb 
blood. Father: William D. West, Cherokee roll, No. 7109; one-fourth 
blood. Mother: I.eona C. WeKt, Cherokee roll. No. 7110; one-fourth 
blood. Child produced at the hearing January 14, 1911. No reason given 
for failure to make application. Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 65 

118. WiLKERSON, Allen. 

Born February 21, 1903; died October 27, 1906; male; one-eighth blood. 
Father: Leonard Wilkerson, Cherokee roll, No. 17613; one-fourth blood. 
Mother : Lydle Wilkerson ; noncltizen. A certified copy of record of mar- 
riage shows that it occurred November 26, 1901. No explanation of fail- 
ure to make application. 

119. WoiJ^ Dick. 

Bom April 7, 1903 ; living January 18, 1911 ; male ; full blood. 

120. Wolfe, Dave. 

Born February 28, 1905; living January 18, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father: Pickup- Wolfe, Cherokee roll, No. 30679; full blood. Mother: 
Eliza Wolfe, Cherokee roll. No. 32069; full blood. The children were 
produced at tlie hearing January 18, 1911. The father testified that he 
did not make application for himself and family and that he does not 
know who gave the names to the commission. 

121. WooDALL, Tom. 

Bom January 13, 1905; living November 16, 1910; male; twenty-one 
thirty-seconds blood. Father: James Woodall, Cherokee roll. No. 8346; 
five-sixteenths blood. Mother: Katie Woodall, Cherokee roll. No. 16515, 
a« Katie Crawford ; full blood. Child produced at the hearing November 
16, 1910. The only explanation of failure to make application is the 
statement of the mother that she thought it was too late. 

122. Weight, Kdoab Ervin. 

Bora February 18, 1903; living Febmary 1, 1911; male; one-eighth 
blood. 

12S. Weight, Willl^m S. 

/ Born December 20, 1905; living February 1, 1911; male; one-eighth 

blood. Father: William G. Wright, Cherokee roll. No. 3726; one-fourth 
blood. Mother: Lena L. Wright; noncltizen. The father claims that he 

/ executed papers for enrollment of these children and supposed they haii 

had been sent to the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. A search 
of the records of that oflice fails to disclose any such application. 

124 y A TTOT ATT C^ TT A ItT.O 'lT V 

Born 'May 22, 1905; living December 23, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Dave Yaholah, Cherokee roll. No. 20517; full blood. Mother: 
Lydia Yaholah, Cherokee roll. No. 20518; full blood. Child produced at 
the hearing December 23, 1910. No explanation of failure to make appli- 
cation for enrollment of this child. 

125. Young, Rufus. 

Bora March 10, 1903; li\ing December 23, 1910; male; full blood. 
Illegitimate child of Sallie Yellowblrd, Cherokee roll. No. 19512; full 
blood. Father: Jack Young, Cherokee roll. No. 17888; male; full blood. 
Child produced at the hearing December 25, 1910. The mother states 
that no application was made for this child '' because I didn't understand 
anything about it." 

CHEROKEE FBEEDMEN. 

1. Hill, Alma. 

Bora August 17, 1895 ; living January 9, 1911 ; female. Father : George 
Hill; not enrolled. Mother: Amanda Hill, Cherokee freedman roll. No. 
4330. This woman has three other children on the roll, and it appears 
that the name of Alma was omitted by oversight when application was 
made for this family. 

2. Lank, Peablie. 

Bora May 30, 1905 ; living January 12, 1911 ; female. Father : Mitchell 
Lane; not enrolled. Mother: Ada Rowe, Cherokee freedman roll. No. 
2004, afterwards Lane, now Martin. Child produced at the hearing 
January 12, 1911. The mother claims that she made application for 
enrollment of the child, but none appears of record. 

69282—13 5 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



66 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Exhibit 4. 

List of Persons Apparently ENfiTiJED to Enrollment in the Chickasaw 
Nation but Whose Names Were Omitted Because no Application Was 
Made or by Reason of Mistake or Oversight. 

chickasaws by blood. 

1. Alexander, Ben. 

Born about 1S99; living Xovemlier 19, 1910; male; half blood. Father: 
John Alexander, Chickasaw freedman roll, No. 492. Mother : Epsie Alex- 
ander, a recognized full-blood Chickasaw, who died prior to September 25, 
1902. No application of record. It api)ears that on Chickasaw Indian 
card. No. 190, are the names of eight children, full brothers and sisters of 
this claimant, who are on the approved roll opiK>8ite Nos. 630 to 636, both 
Inclusive, and No. 4956. 

2. Abpealeb, Nicey. 

Born June 17, 1003; living November 30. 1910; full-blood Indian, three- 
fourths Chickasaw and one-fourth Choctaw; female. 

3. Arpealer, Sidne-y, 

Bom March 20. 1905; living November 30, 1910; full-blood Indian, 
three-fourths Chickasaw and one-fourth Choctaw; male. Father: Gil- 
bert II. Arpealer, Chickasaw roll, No. 182; full blood. Mother: Martha 
Arpealer, enrolled as Martha Perry, Chickasaw roll, No. 4908; half blood. 
The testimony shows the mother to be half Chickasaw and half Choctaw. 
The parents were enrolled on the application of their respective fathers, 
and for the children born afterwards no application was made. ITie 
father testifies that other Indians told him not to have the chlldi*en 
enrolled. 

4. Enshabkey, Annie. 

About 10 years old November 30, 1910; theii living; female; seven 
eighths blood. Father: C. A. Ensharkey, Chickasaw roll, No. 2684; full 
blood. Mother: Sophia Ensharkey, enrolled as Sophia Arpealer, Chicka- 
saw roll, No. 256; three-fourths blood. The parents lived together about 
a year. The mother died in June, 1903. No application was made for 
this child. The mother's people were opposed to enrollment and allot- 
ment. 

6. Johnson, Jim. 

About 32 years old and living November 10, 1910; male; full-blood 
Indian, half Chickasaw and half Cherokee. 

6. Johnson, Eva Agnes. 

Bom June 27, 1904; living November 10, 1910; female; half-blood 
Indian, one-fourth Chickasaw and one-fourth Cherokee. 

7. Johnson, Cobinne May. 

Born December 15, 1905:- living Noveml)er 10, 1910; female; half- 
blood Indian, one-fourth Chickasaw and one-fourth Cherokee. Jim John- 
son, the principal applicant, is shown to be the son of Thompson Coler, 
a full-blood Chickasaw Indian, and Becky Coler, a full-blood Cherokee 
Indian. The parents of Jim died before the enrollment among the Five 
Civilized Tribes was begun, the father when the boy was about 7 
years old and the mother when he was about 15. The boy, after his 
father's death, lived with a white family for a short time and was then 
given the name Jim Johnson. It seems that this applicant, shortly after 
his mother's death, went up into the Cherokee Nation, where he eour 
tinueil to live until 189,5, when he moved into the Creek Nation, where 
he has continued to reside. He gives no vei*y clear explanation of failure 
to apply for enrollment, and it seems to be simply a case where this 
young man, failing to realize the importance of the matter, neglected to 
make application for himself and had nobody to look after his interests. 
The applicants Eva Agnes and Corinne May are the daughters of Jim 
Johnson and his wife, Lizzie J. Johnson, a white woman. Proof of 
marriage is in the form of a marriage license and certificate showing that 
the parties, Jim Johnson and Lizzie Vickery, were duly married August 
18, 1903. The children's enrollment should follow that of the father. 
Johnson's wife is not entitled to recognition. 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 67 

8w Obphan, Buster. 

Born April 13, 1005, died September 7, 1908; male; tliree-fourtlis blood. 
Father; Levi Orphan, Chickasaw roll. No. 311; full blood. Mother: 
Rena Orphan, Chickasaw roll. No. 312; half blood.. The testimony shows 
the mother to be a full-blood Indian, half Chickasaw and half Choctaw. 
The father produced a book entitled " Choctaw Hymns," with an entry 
on the first page: "Buster Orphan. April 13, 1905." The father testifies 
he made the entry the day the child was bom. 

chickasaw freedman. 

1, Thompson, Savanna. 

Bom July 28, 1900; living January 17, 1911; female. Father: Albert 
Thompson, Chickasaw freedman roll, No. 3780. Mother : Lela Thompson ; 
noncitlzen. Application November — , 1912, returned to Albert Thompson, 
together with the application for Jim Thompson, child of said Albert 
and liela, bom Augjist 22, 1902, with instmctions to furnish proof of 
marriage of the parents. This proof of the marriage was furnished Feb- 
ruary 29, 1903, together with affidavit as to the birth of Jim Thompson, 
but apparently the aflldavit as to the birth of Savanna was not returned 
therewith. The name of Jim Thompson was placed upon the rolls of 
Chickasaw freedmen at No. 4493. It is clear* that his sister Savanna 
was equally entitled to enrollment and would have been so enrolled but 
for the fact that the proof of birth and the proof of marriage of the 
parents became separated. 



Exhibit 5. 

List of Persons Apparently Entitled to Enrollment in the Choctaw 
Nation but Whose Names Were Omitted Because no Application Was 
Made by Reason of Mistake or Oversight. 

choctaws by blood. 

1. Carn, David. 

Born February 20, 1906; died August 23, 1908; male; full blood. 
Father: Harlis Carn, Choctaw roll, No. 2882; full blood. Mothet: 
Mary Cam, enrolled as Mary Oklahanibl, Choctaw roll, No. 3388; full 
blood. No application for enrollment of this child was made within the 
time prescribed by law, and no reason is given for the failure. 

2. Chables, Abbam. 

Bom February 1, 1905 ; living January 6, 1911 ; male ; full blood. Father : 

i William Charles, Choctaw roll, No. 3142; full blood. Mother: Sayanis 

Charles, enrolled as Sayanis Willie, Choctaw roll, No. 13481; full blood. 
The father testified through an interpreter, and the only reason given 
for failure to enroll the child is that he was told by some people that 
It was bom out of date and could not be enrolled. Thf» child was present 
at the hearing January 6, 1911. 

I 3. Fisher, Dicey. 

Born in April, 1905; living January 7, 1911; female; full blood. 
Father: Hicks Fisher, Choctaw roll. No. 3342; full bloo<l. Mother: 
Elizabeth Fisher: Choctaw roll. No. 3343; full blood. "This child has a 
full-blood brother, Robert Fisher, Choctaw roll, No. 3344. The parents 
are both dead and the proof is furnished by a sister, Snlena Harley, a 
fnll-blood Choctaw, and two other fnll-blood Choctaws. No reason is 
given for failure to apply for this child. 

4. FoBB, Mary. 

Bom August 4, 1904: living November 19, 1910; female; full blood. 
Father: Joseph Fobb, Choctaw roll. No. 9965; full blood. Mother: Incy 
Fobb, Choctaw roll, No. 9966; full blood. No reason is given for failure 
to enroll this child. The father says: "I thought maybe the commis- 
sioners would enroll her, and I don't supiwse they have enrolled her." 
It is further develoi)ed by the testimony that the father was opposed to 
enrollment and allotment, and wanted to hold the land under the old 
treaty. 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



68 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

5. Garland, Lizzie. 

Boru October 17, 1905; living December 19, 1910: female; full blood; 
the illegitimate child of Minnie Garland, Choctaw roll. No. 5358, full 
blood, and Hickjuan Anderson, a full-blood Choctaw. The testimony in 
this case was taken before L^nited States District Agent House. Lucy 
Garland, the stepmother of Minnie, testifies that she was present when 
the child was bom and that she has had the care of the child ever 
since. Simon Garland, the father of Minnie, testifies that the child was 
bom at his house and still lives with him. Jincy White testifies that 
she saw the child when it was 4 or 5 days old, and that it has lived with 
the grandmother all its life. No reason is given for failure to enroll the 
child. 

6. Haiakonobi, Amos. 

About 14 years old; living January 4, 1911; male; full blood. Father: 
Wilson Haiakonobi, Choctaw roll, No. 1106; full blood. Mother: Louisa 
Haiakonobi, full-blood Choctaw, who died prior to September 25, 1902. 
The Choctaw rolls also show the names of Sillis, Malke, Adeline, and 
Mary Haiakonobi, who are shown to be children of Wilson. l"he name 
of Amos Haiakonobi appears on the 1806 Choctaw tribal census roll at 
No. 5595. The father, a full-blood Choctaw, was opposed to enrollment 
and allotment, and neglected or refused to appear and testify in the 
case January 4, 1911, although advised of the hearing. The testimony 
of neighbors conclusively shows that this boy Is about .14 to 16 years 
old and living January 4, 1911. 

7. HoDQES, Melissa. 

About 15 years old; living November 16, 1910; female; three-fourths 
Indian blood; illegitimate child of Sarah Pisachubbi, Choctaw roll, No. 
3471; full blood. The father is said to have been Hannibal Hodges, 
half negro and half Indian. The mother died about four years prior 
to the hearing November 16, 1910. Agnes AVebster, stepmother of Sarah 
Pisachubbi, testified to the birth of the child, and that when she went 
to apply for Melissa's land she found that her name was not on the rolls. 
No other explanation of failure is given. Melissa was present at the 
hearing November 16, 1910, and appeared to be of Indian blood. 

8. Jackson, Saixie. 

• This full-blood Choctaw Indian removed to the Choctaw country from 

the State of Louisiana about 1896. and continued to live there until her 
death, October 14, 1910. Two sons, William and Email Charles, pre- 
ceded her to the Choctaw Nation, going there in 1894. They were ad- 
mitted to citizenship In the Choctaw Nation by an act of the Choctaw 
Council of October 16, 1895. A son, William Charles, testifies that she 
went with him to be enrolled, but was sick " and she didn't get on." 

9. Jackson, William. 

Date of birth not shown ; died In April, 1906, about 5 years old ; male ; 
full blood. Father: Silas Jackson, Choctaw roll, No. 14599; full blood. 
Mother: Marsie Jackson, enrolled as Marsie Lewis, Choctaw roll, No. 
5796; full blood. The father is dead, but the date of his death is not 
shown. The mother testifies that she does not know why the child was 
not enrolled; that the father said he would make application, but failed 
to do so. The parents were separated when the child was bom, and after 
that lived together a short time and separated again about a year before 
the child died. 

10. Jambs, Fannie Mybtle. 

Bora December 8, 1905 ; living December 1, 1910 ; female ; three-fourths- 
blood Indian, one-half Choctaw and one-fourth Chickasaw. Father : Gil- 
bert James, Chickasaw roll, No. 4836 : half blood. Mother : Sallie James, 
enrolled as Sallie Clay, Choctaw roll. No. 5343; full blood. Application 
was made July 2, 1906, for enrollment of this child, and her name was 
listed on minor Choctaw card, No. 456. February 23, 1907, the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Tribes refused to enroll the claimant because the 
mother, Sallie James, could not be identified on the Choctaw roll, and no 
proof of marriage of the parents was furnished. This action was ap- 
proved by the Secretary of the Interior March 4, 1907. Apparently the 
failure to Identify the mother was due to the fact that she was enrolled 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVIUZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 69 

uuder ber name before marriage. The proof clearly establishes the rights 
of this child, and that application was made in due time, but denied 
because of the mistalce noted. The child was present at the hearing, 
December 1, 1910. 

11. Johnson, Alphbus. 

Bom February 23, 1906; living January 6. 1911; male; full blood. 
Father; Anthony Johnson, Choctaw roll. No. 1393; full blood. Mother: 
Frances Johnson, enrolled as Frances Billy, Choctaw roll. No. 2989; full 
blood. No reason whatever is given for failure to make application for 
this child. The parents, being full-blood Indians, evidently did not look 
after the matter. 

12. Kino, Solomon. 

Bom December 24, 1905; living January 9, 1911; male; full blood. 
Father : Jesse King, Choctaw roll. No. 10778 ; full blood. Mother : Alice 
King, Choctaw roll. No. 9837, as Alice Nicholas; full blood. 

13. McKinney, Benjamin Feankun. 

Bom Febmary 2, 1905 ; died August 8, 1906 ; male ; full blood. Father : 
John McKinney, Choctaw roll, No. 12229 ; full blood. Mother : Dora Amos, 
Mississippi Choctaw roll. No. 785; full blood. 

14. Polk, Willis. 

Born November 9, 1905; living November 15, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Cephus Kepo, now known as Cepbus K. Polk, Chickasaw roll, No. 
3630; full blood. Mother: Mary Polk, Choctaw roll. No. 10652; full blood. 
The father testified through an interpreter. He says he did not make 
application for this child because he was told by other Indians not to do 
so and they would get their land back and hold it in common. The child 
was present at the hearing, November 15, 1910. 

15. Robinson, William F. 

Bora July 29, 1861; living December 6, 1910; male; three-eighths blood. 

16. Robinson, Alice. 

17. Robinson, Alpha. 

Twins; born March 15, 1897; female. 

18. Robinson, Ada B. 

Bom December 4, 1898 ; female. 

19. Robinson, James William. 

Born July 3, 1901; male. 

20. Robinson, Emeline. 

Bom August 5, 1903 ; female. 

2L Robinson, Mary Ola. 

Bom November 6, 1905: female. All living December G, 1910; three- 
sixteenths blood. All children of Williaui F. Robinson. 

There Is no question as to the Choctaw blood of William F. Robinson, 
his mother, Emeline E. Robinson, being on the Choctaw roll at No. 743, 
half blood, and his full brother, Alex Robinson, being on the Choctaw roll 
at No. 863, three-eighths blood. 

It api)ears that William F. Robinson, In 18S4, had a quarrel with a 
white man and so Injured him that It was supposed he would die. 
Robinson thereupon left the country and did li^t return until 1904. He 
claims that he supposed until about the time of his return that the man 
whom he struck had died, and he feared arrest and punishment If he 
should return. He further avers that he had no communication with 
anybody In the Choctaw Nation until about the time of his return. 
During his absence In New Mexico, about ISOCi, he married a noncltizen, 
now Levonia Robinson. Notwithstanding this man's absence from the 
Choctaw countrj', It Is believed. In view of his undoubted Choctaw blood 
and the reason for his absence from the coimtry, that he, with his 
children, should be protected in their claims as Choctaws if any provision 
be made for adding names to the Choctaw roll. 

The wife, a white woman, not having resided In the Choctaw country 
prior to June 28, 1898, and having no claim by blood, should not be given 
favoRible consideration. 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



70 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

22. Wright, Joseph James. 

Born July 9, 1905; died March 8, 1906; male; full-blood Indian, three- 
fourths Choctaw and one-fourth Chickasaw. Father: Eslam Wright. 
Choctaw roll, No. 12859; full blood. Mother: Frances Wright, Choctaw 
roll, No. 120; one-half Choctaw and one-half Chickasaw blood, but en- 
rolled as half blood. 

mississippi choctaws. 

1. Davis, Mond Amos. ' 

The proof, November 19, 1910, shows that this applicant is about 17 or 
18 years old ; that his mother, Josephine Amos, or Josephine Davis, was 
a full-blood Choctaw, who died prior to the removal of the Choctaws from 
Mississippi ; that a half brother, Jeff Amos, a half sister, Luclnda Amos, 
and a half sister, Rosella Amos, by the same mother, are on the rolls of 
Mississippi Choctaws as full bloods at Nob. 1415, 1416, and 1417, respec- 
tively. It Is further shown that this boy removed to the Choctaw country 
with the family pt, Billy Washington and is still living with him. Billy 
Washington was a member of the Snake Band of Indians, opposed to 
enrollment, and prevented the boy from appearing at the hearing in 
1910. It is clearly shown that this boy has lived in the Choctaw-Chicka- 
saw country since his removal thereto in 1903. If any provision shall 
be made for the further Identification and enrollment of Mississippi 
Choctaws, this applicant should be recognized. 

2. John, Lillie Jackson. 

About 21 years old and living January 25, 1911 ; female, full blood. 

This applicant was bom in Mississippi. Her father Is Alex Jackson, 
a full-blood Choctaw, and her mother, Martha Jackson, a full-blood 
Choctaw, these facts being testified to by witnesses who knew them In 
Mississippi. Both these parents died while the applicant was a young 
child. Lillie removed from Mississippi to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country 
in 1902 with her grandmother, Ellen Jim, who afterwards married Wil- 
liam Billey, and a company of Mississippi Choctaws, and has lived there 
since that time. It seems that this child was overlooked in making up 
the rolls of Mississippi Choctaws because her full-blood grandmother did 
not make application. 

3. McDaniel, Houston. 

About 23 years old and living November 17, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father: Aqua McDaniel. Mother: Nancy McDaniel. Both parents are 
alleged to have been full-blood Choctaw Indians, who died in Mississippi. 
Houston removed to Oklahoma in 1001. and has resided there since that 
time. Isaac Thompson, a Mississippi Choctaw, testifies that he brought 
Houston with him to the Choctaw country in 1001, and that the boy has 
lived there ever since. He further testifies that he presented Houston's 
name to the Dawes Commission, but was told that the boy must appear 
before them in person. It appears that the claims of this boy for enroll- 
ment were not fully presente<l, because of his youth and the fact that 
nobody else looked after them. 

4. McDaniel, Joe. 

About 12 years old, and living November 17, 1910; male; full blood. 
Father : John McDaniel. Mother : Mary McDaniel. Both parents shown 
by the testimony t« have been full-blood Choctaw Indians living in Mis- 
sissippi. The father died there, and the mother removed to the Choc- 
taw country in Oklahoma In 1906. The boy Joe, however, was brought 
by Isaac Thompson In 1901. being about 3 years old. This boy has lived 
In the Choctaw country In Oklahoma since that time. Thompson states 
that when he went before the Dawes Commission In behalf of Joe he was 
told that the child must appear In person. 

5. Taylor, Joseph. 

Bom June 21, 1905; living December 17, 1910: male; full blood. 
Father: Frank Taylor. Mississippi Choctaw roll, No. 1075: full blood. 
Mother: Lulie Taylor, Mi8Slssii)pi Choctaw roll. No. 1076; full blood. 
No application of record. The father and mother each testify that they 
had no money to go to Muskogee to make application. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 71 

intermabbied choctaw. 
Bevill, Joe T. 

The proof shows that Joe T. BevlU was married to Alice E. Pitchlynn, 
a member of the Choctaw tribe, Choctaw roll No. 13038, as Alice Bevill, 
December 23, 1875, and continued to live with her until 1900, when she 
divorced him. In 1808 Bevill was arrested for some offense, the charac- 
ter of which is not shown, and upon conviction was sentenced to the 
penitentiary for a term of years, A divorce was secured by his wife, 
because of his conviction and imprisonment. Upon his relea'se from 
Imprisonment In 1901 he did not return to the Choctaw country, the 
reason for not doing so being stated by him as follows: 

" Well, I used to think I stood pretty well here with my people, but I 
took a terrible downfall and got Into the penitentiary and felt delicate 
about coming back, and after I got out of the penitentiary I went in the 
Cherokee country, and I was so ashamed and didn't come back." 

The testimony further shows that this man was recognized as a Choc- 
taw citizen and exercised various rights of such citizens, such as serving 
on juries In the Choctaw courts, serving as a clerk of elections In the 
Choctaw elections, securing permits for his renters to remain in the 
Choctaw country, voting at Choctaw elections, and acting as private secre- 
tary to the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation. This couple raised 
a family of children, five of whom were living December 1, 1910, and 
upon the final rolls pt the Choctaw Nation. It Is believed that the 
facts In this case justify the recognition of this man*s right to enrollment 
as an Intermarried Choctaw. 



Exhibit 6. 

List of Persons Apparently Entitled to Enrollment as Choctaw Freed- 
MEN, BUT Whose Names Were Omitted Because No Application Was Made, 
OB BY Reason of Mistake or Oversight. 

1 Al«EXANDER PATSIE. 

Bom' September 18, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Rob- 
ert Alexander, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 4336. Mother: Sallle Alex- 
ander; noncitizen. Application, October 4, 1906, refused because pre- 
sented too late. 

2. Allen, Otha. 

Boni December 7, 1903; living January 4, 1911; female. Father: F. 
K Allen ; noncitizen. Mother : Georgia Allen, Choctaw freedman roll, 
No. 3892, as Georgia Nash. No application of record. Father testifies 
that he tried to make application, but was told it was too late. 

3. Anderson, Augustts. 

Born September 15, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Ed 
Anderson ; noncitizen. Mother : Ellen Anderson, Choctaw freedman roll, . 
No. 126. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. 

4. Anthony, Washington. 

Born May 23, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male. 

5. Anthony, Hester. 

Bom June 10, 1905: living March 4, 1906; female. Father: S. J. 
Anthony; noncitizen. Mother: I.s;»bella Anthony. Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 2490. Application, August 15, 1906, refused because presented 
too late. 

6. Artby, Nazell. 

Bom September 4, 1903; living March 4, 1906; female. 

7. Artby, Laveter. 

Bom May 16, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Richard 
Artry; noncitizen. Mother: Lucretia Artry, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
252. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

8. Bailey, Cora. 

Born December 19, 1905 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. Father : Henry 
Bailey; noncitizen. Mother: Mollie McCoy, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
1563. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



72 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

9. Bailey, Dave. 

Born July 25, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. 

10. Bailey, Apdie May. 

Born May 19, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Hun 
Bailey; noncitlzen. Mother: Leona Bailey, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
670. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

11. Bailey, Mabel. 

Born August 11, 1903; living January 7, 1911; female. 

12. Bailey, Susa Anna. 

Bom September 18, 1905; died March 11, 1908; female. Father: Gabe 
Bailey; noncitlzen. Mother: Ida Bailey, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
622. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented too late. 
Further testimony taken January 7, 1911. 

13. Beckwith, Maby Ella. 

Born March 7, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. 

14. Beckwith. William Henry. 

Bom July 7, 1905; living March 4. 1906; male. Father: Oliver Beck- 
with; noncitlzen. Mother: Frances Beckwith, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 1844. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

15. Berby, James Boyett. 

Bom May 11, 1905; living January 6, l&ll; male. Father: V^esley 
Berry; noncitlzen. Mother: Amelia Berry, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
425, as Amelia McGuire. No application of record. Testimony taken 
January 6, 1911. 

16. Bird, Ida. 

Bom June 15, 1902; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: George 
Victor; noncitlzen. Mother: Sophina Bird, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 
834, as Sophina Hall. Application presented March 4, 1907, and case re- 
ported to department by telegram same day; received In Washington 
March 5. This name is in the list of 52 names forwarded with the com- 
missioner's report of November 15, 1907. 

17. Blunt, Sammie. 

Bom July 22, 1905 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. Father : Henry Blunt, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4892. Mother: Veltou Blunt; noncitlzen. 
Application, December 20, 1906, refused because presented too late. 
Original marriage license and certificate presented January 16, 1911. 

18. Boyd, Emma, now Austin. 

Born in 1885 ; living January 5, 1911 ; female. No application of record. 
The records of the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
and testimony taken January 5, 1911, show that applicant has a half 
brother, Louis Burris, a full brother. Daniel Boyd, and a full sister, 
Phyllis Jackson, enrolled as Choctaw freedmen opposite Nos. 5245, 5241, 
and 5246, respectively. The mother of these people is also the mother of 
the claimant here. The testimony taken at the time applications were 
made for the enrollment of l^nis Burris, Daniel Boyd, and Phyllis 
Jackson shows that their mother, Hannah Boyd, was the slave of a 
Choctaw Indian. The only reason given for failure to make application 
for Emma is that she was sick at the time the others went before the 
commission and. was unable to api^ear. She seems equally entitled with 
her brothers and sisters to enrollment. 

19. BoYLEs, Mary Malinda. 

Bom October 8, 1800; living March 4, 1906; female. 

20. BoYLES, ^Iabtha. 

Born December 9, 1901 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. 

21. BoYLES, Fbank Thomas. 

Born May 6, 11)03; living March 4, 1906; male. 

22. BoYLES, LuLA Alice. 

Bom February 8, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Sam 
Boyles: noncitlzen. Mother: Ellen Boyles, Choctaw fretniman roll. No. 
5410. Ai)i)liontion. February 9, 1907, rt»fused because presented too late. 
It appears from the records that the mother was finally admitted as a 
Choctaw freedman November 23, 1906. No reason is given for the failure 
to make application for these children. ^^^,r> 

Digitized by VjOOv IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 73 

23. Bbannon, Frances. 

Bom May 26, 1903; living Marcli 4, 1906; female. 

24. Bbannon, Viola. 

Boni April 27, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Wash 
Brannon; noncitizen. Mother: Carrie Brannon, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 1261, as Carrie Meadowa Application, July 26, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. 

25. Brashears, Lerot. 

Boru October 2, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Charley 
Brashears, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1918. Mother: Henryetta Bra- 
shears, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1919. Application, August 8, 1906, 
refused because presented too late. 

28. Brown, Beatrice. 

Bom March 8, 1905 ; living January 5, 1911 ; female. Father : Houston 
Brown, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 243. Mother: Virginia Brown; non- 
citizen. No application of record. The marriage is shown by witnesses 
who were present at the ceremony. 

27. Brown, Erna. 

Born September 17, 1903; living January 10, 1911; female. Father: 
John Brown; noncitizen. Mother: Cornelia Brown, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 5301. Application, December 31, 1906, refused because presented 
too late. 

28. Brown, Lee. 

Born January 4, 1905; living November 18, 1910; female. Father: 
Harris Brown, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 525. Mother : Emma Brown ; 
noncitizen. No application of record. Marriage is shown by testimony 
of witnesses at the hearing November 18, 1910. No reason is given for 
failure to make application for this child, except the father states that 
he thought there was no use to do so. 

29. Brown, Mabel. 

Bom July 19, 1903 ; died August 10, 1907 ; female. 

30. Brown, Lucretia. 

Boru January 12, 1905; living January 9, 1911; female. Father: Hick- 
man Brown, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1234. Mother: Emma Brown, 
noncitizen. No application of record. The marriage is established by 
testimony of witnesses who were present at the ceremony. 

31. Brown, Nathan. 

Bora April 1, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Charley 
Brown, Chickasaw freedman roll. No. 1733. Mother: Siny Brown, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 3001, as Slny Cochran.. Application, August 8, 
1906, refused because presented too late. 

32. Brown, Oscar. 

Bora December 14, 11K)1 ; living January 9, 1911 ; male. Father: Simon 
Brown, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 830. Mother: Samantha Brown, 
Choctaw freedman roll, Xo. 5473, as Samantha McDanlel. Application, 
August 8, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

33. Brown. Koosevelt. 

Bora March — , 1904: living January 10. 1911 : male. Father: William 
Brow^, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1235. Mother: Annie Brown, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 3160, as Annie Riley. No application of record. 
No reason given for failure to make such application. 

34. BucKNER, Porter. 

Bora June 20, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Nathan 
Buckner, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1027. Mother: Margaret Buckner, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4214. Application, October 3, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

35. BUFFINGTON, ALEX. 

Nine years old; living January 10, 1911; male. 

36. BUFEINGTON, ZeMERIAH. 

Bora August 6, 1904; living January 10, 1911: female. Father: 
Willis Buffington, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 12.38. Mother: Sarah 
Bufflngton, noncitizen. No application of record. The marriage of the 
parents Is shown by witnesses. This couple has an older child enrolled 
as Jennie Bufflngton, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1230oigitizedbyV^OOQlC 



74 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

37. BuBBis, Augustus. 

Boru December 4, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: John 
Burris, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2859. Mother: Delia Burris, Choc- 
taw freedman roll, No. 2860. Application, December 3, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

38. BuBBis, Elbebta. 

Born January 1, 1903; living March 4, 1906; female. Father; William 
Burris, noncltizeu. Mother : Lilly Parker Burris, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 1836. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

39. BUBBIS, I^UDELLA. 

Bom July 17, 1905; living January 4, 1911; female. Father: Lonls 
Burris, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 5245. Mother: Sylvanla Burris, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 234. No application of record. No reason 
is given for failure to make application except that the father states be 
did not know there was any law under which the child could be enrolled. 

40. BtTBBis, Hattie. 

Bom April 28, 1901 ; living March 4, 1906; female. 

41. BuBBis, Isaac. 

Bom Decenil)er 5, 1902; living March 4, 1906; male. 

42. BuBBis, John. 

Born January 29, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Turner 
Burris, Choctaw freedman roil. No. 4870. Mother: Etta Burris, non- 
citizen. Applications for enrollment of Hattie, February 25, 1907, and 
for enrollment of Isaac and John, February 26, 1907, were approved by 
the Commissioner to the Five Tribes March 4, 1907, and their names 
telegrnphed to the department. This telegram was not received by the 
department until March 5. These nnmes are included in the list of 52 
names reported November 15, 1907. 

43. BuBBis, Isaac. 

44. BuBBis, Ida. 

Twins; bom October 31, 1903; living November 19, 1910; Isaac, male; 
Ida, female. 

45. BUBBiS, JUDIE. 

Born February 8, 1905 or 1006; living November 19. 1910; female. 
Father: Sam Burris, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 401. Mother: Frances 
Burris, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 402. No application of record. No 
reason given for failure to make such application. 

46. BuRBis, SiRAs Jeffie. 

. Born March 16, 1901; living March 4, 1906; male. 

47. BuBBis, Effie Leona. 

Born June 28, 1903; living March 4, 3906; female. 

48. BuRBis, May Helen. 

Bom December 20, 1905: living March 4, 1906; female. Father: 
Nathan Burris. Choctaw freedman roll, No. 483. Mother : Emma Burris, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 484. Application, July 20, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

49. BuBBis, Ruth IE Ann. 

Bom October 3, 1905; living January 6, 1911: female. Father: Eddy 
Burris, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2881. Mother: CalHe feurris, non- 
citizen. No application of record. The marriage of the parents Is 
established by the testimony of Eddy Burris and by other witnesses, 
who state that the couple lived together as man and wife for eight 
or nine years up to the time of the death of the wife in April, 1910. 

50. BuBBis. Thomas. 

About six years old, and living January 9, 1911; male. Illegitimate 
child of Peggie McDaniel, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 165, the putative 
father being Nathan Burris, alleged to be a Choctaw freedman. No 
application of record, and no reason given for failure to make one. 

51. BUBBIS, WlLLIF« 

Bom June 22. 1904; living Noveml>er IS. 1910: male. Father: George 
Burris, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 174. Mother: ^etta Burris, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 340. as Zetta Lewis, No api)licatlon of record. The 
father testifies that he did not get notice of the eurollmm^ui^l^oo late. 



FIVE OiVILIZBD TiOBSS IK OKLAHOMA. 7S 

52. Bun-EB, DociLLA. 

Born July 15, 1906 ; living January 4, 1911 ; female. 

53. BuTLEB, Loving. 

Bom February 22, 1906; died at age of six weeks, date not given; 
male. Father: William Butler, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2904. Mother: 
Adeline Butler, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 235, as Adeline Burris. 
Parents separated. Mother says that no application was made for this 
child because she did not know "there was any enrolling going on at 
that time." 

54. BuTLEB, Florida. 

Bom June 12, 1905; living November 19, 1910; female. Father : Charlie 
Bntler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 186. Mother : Isabel Butler, Choctaw 
freedman roll, No. 324. This couple have a child enrolled under the 
act of April 26, 1906, application made May 12, 1906. It is not shown 
why Florida was not included in that application. 

55. BuTLEB, Fbedonia. 

Bora May 27, 1902 ; living January 5, 1911 ; female. Father : Mason 
Butler, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2787. Mother : Annie Butler, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 737, as Annie Jackson. No application to Commis- 
sioner of Five Tribes, and no reason for failure to make such application. 

66. BuTLEB, Gbeen. 

Bora October 29, 1902; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Simmy 
Butler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 704. Mother: Fredonia Butler, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 706. Application [H*esented December 3, 1906. 
Commissioner to Five Tribes refused to receive or consider same. 

57. BuTLEB, Jennie. 

Twenty-five years of age ; living November 19, 1910 ; female. Father : 
Wellington Butler, Choctaw freedman, who died prior to enrollment. 
Mother: Fannie Butler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 383. Both parents 
dead. Five sisters and two brothers on the Choctaw freedman roll. 
Applicant's name was omitted when the others were enrolled in 1899. 
Applicant's name appears on the freedfban census roll of 1896 as No. 245. 

58. BuTLEB, Mabt. 

Bora April 4. 1904 ; living November 18, 1910 ; female. Father : Adolphus 
Butler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 772. Mother : Jennie Butler, Choctaw 
. freedman roll. No. 773. Application presented July 26, 1906, but declined 

because time had expired. 

50. Butler, Robert. 

• Born January 1, 1906; living November 19, 1910; male. Father: Grant 

Butler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 362. Mother: Melvina Butler; non- 
citizen. Application July 25, 1906, rejected for lack of proof of marriage 
of parents. Marriage license filed March 13, 1907, shows the marriage of 
the parents Januarj' 19, 1902. 

60. BUTI.ER. ROSAPHEXT. 

Bora March 2, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Ed Butler, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 805. Mother: Lettie Butler, Choctaw freed- 
man roll. No. 2897. Application presented July 26, 1906, but declined 
because time had expired. 

61. Butler, Tena. 

Born January 23, 1903; living November 19, 1910; female. Father: 
Zack Butler, Choctaw freedman, who died July 23. 1902. Mother: Annie 
Butler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 323. No application. Mother testi- 
fies she did not know of the enrolllDg of new-born children In 1906 until 
it was too late to apply for this child's enrollment. The child was 
present at the hearing November 10, 3010. 

(S2. Btttleb, Wellington. 

Bora December — , 1903; living November 19, 1910; male. Father: 
Grant Butler, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 362. Mother: Melyina But- 
ler; noucltlzen. No application shown by records of the office of the 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Father testifies he sent an 
application at the pame time he applied for Robert Butler, a younger 
child. Marriage license was filed, showing the marriage of the parents 
January 10, 1902. ^^^.^ 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



76 FIVE CIVIUZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

63. Ck>GHBAN, NONIE. 

Born September 27, 1907; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: 
Frank Cochran, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3003. Mother: Agnes 
Cochran. Chickasaw freedman roll, No. 326, as Agnes Colbert. Appli- 
cation, August 8, 1900, refused because not presented In Ume. 

64. CoHEE, Edmond Maces. 

Born December 16, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Hen- 
derson Cohee, Chickasaw freedman roll. No. 2846, as Hence Cohee. 
Mother: Hattie Cohee, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2416. Application, 
January 31, 1907, refused because presented too late. 

65 Colbert T^esbtt 

Born April 27, 1905; living March 4. 1906; male. Father: Henry Ool- 
bwt, Chickasaw freedman roll. No. 4026. Mother: Laura Colbert, Choc- 
taw freedman roll, No. 4419. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. 

66. Colbert, Virginia. 

Bom April 1, 1903; living March 4, 1906; female. 

67. Colbert, Dave. 

Bom November 17, 1905 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. Father : Colum- 
bus Colbert, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4578. Mother: Luvindia Col- 
bert; noncitlzen. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented 
too late. 

68. Cole, Claud. 

Bora December 3, 1902; died October 3, 1907; male. 

69. Cole, Arch. 

Born December 31, 1904; living January 6, 1911; male. Father: Wil- 
liam Cole, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2895. Mother: Nancy Cole; non- 
citizeu. No application was made for these children. The proof shows 
the marriage of the !)« rents. Their older children are enrolled. 

70. Cole, Jeff. 

About 48 years of ace dnd living January 6. 1911; male. Father: 
Josh Cole; noncitlzen. Mother: Matilda Butler, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 268. No application was made within the proper time. Claimant 
was born in the Choctaw Nation and lived in the Indian Territory all 
his life. Probably was in the Creek Nation about the time of enrollment 
in the Choctaw Nation. A full brother, Isaac Cole, fs enrolled at No.« 
249. Three half brothers and a half sister by the same mother are on 
the rolls as Nos. 261), 270, 272, and 273. 

• 

71. Cole, Mamey. 

Born April 22, 1003; living January 6, 1911; female. 

72. Cole, Liza Ellen. 

Born June 10, 1905: living January 6, 1911; female. Father: William 
Logan Cole, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 209. Mother: Mary Etta Cole; 
noncitlzen. Proof given January 6, 1911, that this couple had lived to- 
gether as man and wife for at least 15 years. Application for these 
children, December 3. 1906, refused because presented too late. 

73. Cole, Mattie. 

Born January 28, 1903 ; living February 6, 1911 ; female. 

74. Cole, Jim. 

Born December 23, 1905; living Febmary 6, 1911; male. Father: Dan- 
iel Cole, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2951. Mother: Dora Cole, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 1058. No application and no explanation of failure 
to make same. 

75. Cole, Riley. 

Born November 6, 1902; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Mathew 
Cole, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2784. Mother: Amanda Colfe; noncitl- 
zen. Testimony shows that the parents were married April 9, 1901, and 
have lived as man and wife since then. The divorce of the woman from 
a former husband is shown only by her own testimony. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 77 

76. Cook, George Ix)vfy. 

Bom November 25,1905; living Marcli 4,1906; male. Father: Newton 
Cook; noncitizen. Mother: Emma Ck)ok, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
1295. Application, October 4, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

77. Cotton, Andy. 

Bom August 6, 1905; living January 6, 1911; male. Father: Essie 
Cotton, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 652. Mother : Australia Cotton ; non- 
citizen. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. The father's divorce from a former wife is shown by certified copy 
of decree filed in case of Essie Cotton. His marriage to the mother of 
this child is shown by witnesses present at the ceremony. 

78. Cotton, Essie. 

Bom October 3, 1902; •living January 5, 1911; male. Father: Essie 
Cotton, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 652. Mother: Anna Cotton, now 
Clark ; noncitizen. No application made for this child. The marriage of 
the parents is established by their testimony and by witnesses present at 
the ceremony, and also by a certified copy of a decree of divorce. The 
child was present at the hearing January 5, 1911. 

TO. Cotton, Maggie F. 

Bom August 6, 1906; living January 6, 1911; female. Father: Andy 
Cotton, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 651. Mother: Lelia Cotton; nonciti- 
zen. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

80. Cbutchfield, Lovie. 

Bom May — , 1905; living January 9, 1911; female. Father: Dan 
Crutchfleld; noncitizen. Mother: Josephine Cmtchfleld, Choctaw freed- 
man roll, No. 4327, as Jos^hine McGee. No application and no reason 
given therefor. 

81. Cubit, Hisk. 

Bom March 18, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Douglas 
Cubit, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 39. Mother: DiUie Cubit, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 474, as Delia Lewis. Application, July 26, 1906, 
refused because preseited too late. 

82. Dangebfielo, Mtbee. 

Bom Febroary 17, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. 

88. Dangebfield, Mat. 

Bora May 18, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. 

81 Dangebfield, Roxan. 

Bora Febraary 5,1906; living March 4,1906; female. Father: William 
Dangerfield ; noncitizen. Mother : Rhoda Dangerfield, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 4229. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. 

85. Daniels, John Henbt. 

Bora January 23, 1904 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. 

86. Daniels, Fbed. 

Born August 4. 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Charlie 
Daniels, Choctaw freedman roll. No. ^14. Mother: Vertie Daniels; non- 
citizen. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. Marriage proved by witnesses present when the ceremony was 
performed. 

87. Davis, Eddy. "^ 

Bom April 15, 1904; living January 24, 1911; male. Father: Wlil 
Davis; noncitizen. Mother: Helen Davis, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 
1054. No application. Proof in the form of aflWavits of mother and 
midwife. 

88. Dbapeb, Ebnest. 

Bom February 17, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. 

89. Dbapeb, Willie Lee. 

Bom March 20, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Sanford 
Draper; noncitizen. Mother: Cornelia Draper, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 1284, as Comella Hunter. Application, September 28, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



78 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

90. Edwabds, Lettie. 

Born October 17, 1005 ; living January 9, 1911 ; female. Father : Jamee 
Edwards; noncitlzen. Mother: Tennessee Edwards, Choctaw freedman 
roll, No. 2774, as Tennessee Butler. No application. 

Born July 25, 1908; liring March 4, 1906; female. Father: William I. 
Bverldge, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1342. Mother: Katie Everidge, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1343. Application, October 3, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

92. Fields, Ernest. 

Born April 6, 1903; living January 7, 1911; male. 

93. FiEi.Ds, IjOUis. 9 

Born February 27,1906; living January 7, 1911; male. Father: Hamp- 
ton Fields, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 618. Mother: Eliza Fields, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 619» Application, December 3, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

94. Fields, Laura. 

Bom August 25, 1903: living January 4, 1911 ; female. 

95. Fields, Vesta. 

Bom M)irch 14, 1905; living January 4, 1911: female. Father: Arthur 
Fields, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 109. Mother: Ellease Fields, non- 
citizen. No application of record. Proof of marriage of the parents by 
witnesses who were present at the ceremony. 

96. Fields, Ix)la Bell. 

Bom February 14, 1905 ; living January 5, 1911 ; female. 

97. Fields, Louberta. 

Born February 14, 1906; living January 5, 1911; female. Father: 
Snmmy Fields, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 102. Mother: Florence Fields. 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 261, as Florence Butler. No application of 
record. 

98 Fischer. Clarence 

Born August 31. 1904; living March 4, 1006; male. Father: Frank 
Fisher, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 5373. Mother: Mary Alice Fisher, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4526. Application, July 26, 1906. refused 
because presented too late. 

99. Floyd, Richard. 

Born September 1, 1903; living January 6, 1911; male. Father* 
Charley Floyd ; nrnicltizen. Mother : Katie Floyd, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 2SG9. Application, December 3, 1006, refuped because presented" too 
late. 

100. FoLSOM, Frank. 

Born June — , 1901 ; living January 9, 1911 ; male. 

101. FOLSOM, Erna. 

Bora in 1902; living January 9, 1911; female. 

102. FOLSOM, RUFDS. • 

Bom In 1905; living January 9, 1911; male. Father: Johnson Folsom, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 981. Mother: Jennie Thompson, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 68. No application of record. The dates of the births 
of these children are not fixed, but witnesses testify as to approximate 
ages, showing all bom prior to March 4, 1906. 

103* Folsom, Oliver. 

Horn August 28. 1905; living January 9, 1911: male. Father: Johnson 
Folsom, Choctaw freedman roll. No. OSl. Mother: Eliza Folsom, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 082. No application of record. Date of birth fixed 
by mother and by record In family Bible. 

104. Folsom, Willis. 

Born February 12. 1006: llvlug Januai-y 0. 1911; male. Father: 
Jordon Folsom, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 218. >Iother: Josephine 
Folsom, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 3705. No application of record. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



PIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 70 

105. Fbazieb, Gobdelia. 

Born August 3. 1908 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. 

106. Frazieb, Robert. 

Born October 26. 1905: living March 4, 1906; male. Father: John 
Frnzier; noncitizen. Mother: Tennessee Frnzier, Choctaw freedmnn roll, 
No. 23. Application, January 29, 1907, refused because presented too late. 

107. Frazier, Samuel. 

A little over 8 years old; living January 10, 1911 ; male. 

108. Frazier. Benjamin. 

About 7 years old; living Januaiy 10, 1911: male. Father: Alfred 
Frazier, Choctaw freedmnn roll. No. 3217. Mother: Sylvanie Frazier, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1182. No application of. record. The father 
was in prison and the mother sick at the time of the investigation. The 
testimony was given by neighbors, who could not fix dates of births. 
Both boys attending school. 

109. Frazier, Flysis. 

Bom July 8, 1003; living November 18, 1910; male. 

110. Frazier. Sidney. 

Bom June 8. 1905: living November 18, 1910: male. Father: Johnnie 
Frazier, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4351. Mother: Ijcna Frazier, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 1424. Application. August 8, 1906, refused be- 
cause presented too late. Further testimony taken November 18, 1910. 

111. Freeman, Hattie. 

Bom April 14. 1^04; living January 9. 1911; female. Father: Matt 
Freeman, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4042. Mother: Ella Freeman, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4043. No application of record. 

112. Freeman. Ix)Rena. 

Bom Dumber 21. 1905; living January 10. 1911: female. Father: 
I^uis Fryman. Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4500. Mother : Ida Freeman, 
Choctay freedman roll. No. 14, as Ida Williams. No application of 
records and the mother testifies that she does not know why such appli- 
cation was not made. 

113. Fhee»y. Levie. 

lom February 7. 1906; died March 16, 1910: male. Father: Andrew 

Fweny. Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4568. Mother: Clarissa Freeny, 

Ol>)ctow freedman roll. No. 2891, as Clarissa Murphy. Application, 

/Jain.iry 7. 1907, refused because presentipd too late. Additional testl- 

/mOiy taken in January, 1911. 

114. 'Gaf^xey, Augusta. 

■ i5om May 20, 1899; living January 4, 1911 ; female. 

115> Gafney, Nellie. 

."lorn January 25, 1902; living January 4. 1911; female. 

U6. Gaipney', Jimmte. 

Rom May 12, 1905: living January 4. 1911: male. Father: Tom 
Giffney. noncltlzen. Mother: Klzzie Gaffney, Choctaw freedman roll, 
N*. 5074. No application of record. The mother asserts that she tried 
to make application for one or two of these children when her older 
Ciildren were enrolled, but was not permitted to do so. No other 
explanation is given for the failure to make application. 

117. Gibson. Nettie. 

Bom June — . 1904: living January 4. 1911; female. Father: Neal 
Gibson: noncltlzen. Mother: Vina Gibson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
880. No application of record, and no reason given for failure to 
oiake one. 

118. Graham. Grover. 

j Bom March 22, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male. 

119. GrtAHAM, Melvin. 

Bom March 2, 1906: living March 4. 1906; male. Father: Jerry 
graham, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4204. Mother: Patsy Graham. 
(Dhoctaw freedman roll. No. 3708. as Patsy Hall. Application, March 4, 
i907, refused because presented too late. 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



80 



riVE CIVILIZEP 



xbibbs 



IN 



l'Jl\ i^KAV, Odf.ssa. 



Uoru March A, 1904 ; living 



January 5, 



OKLAHOMA. 
1911; female. 



Henry Gtay ; 



V-il. 



Orvy. J.vmks Willie. ^ k i9U'. P^^^man toU, >^* 'i^^ one. 

Born lu imv. living January 5^^^^ ^^^J^rtaU^^o ^Vhe mother 
noiultizon. Mother: Ida Gray, Cnoc^ ^ or i ^. /^KZ^ the 

HaukH. No appucatlon and ^L,Tmarriedln May, ^ ^^ ftxes^ 
Tho paronts tostlfy that they ^^^^^^^ ^^kt Jame» ^^ilnh in 3nne, 
Htntos tlmt Odessji was born iaJNi*^ ^^g ^^^Hn^ of l^^® ^^Jr^rU were 
Mrth In May. V.m. The w^^^^^Tp- ftxes the t^.^t^'these <=^,V^l^n was 
January 14. 11)05, while the f a^^^JicVently t^J^^g. At^^^^^a^^^^ 
vent. It is sho^/^^^e then^Uvins ^^es that c^^ 



123. Green, Ed. 



124. 



125. 



126. 



llH)r>. In any eve 

bom prior to March 4, 190«. anQ ^-- The m"-- ^ chVW ^"^ "rir 

made at the s«nio time for l^a May G^^^er til^n^^?'^irth is ^Bsutn^ea^- 

birth as January 4, 1906, whf^e ti\e ' ^^ ^\a Ma> » 

in May, 1906. The testimony aV ^^ ^^ ^^ 

122. Green, Amy Jane. 1 ^ „,.^-y 10, 1^^^ ' *^^*^ 

About 12 years old and livinj' , ^^^ 

r «^ 10, 1911' ^*'^''* 

About 8 years old and living Ajannary father: Dave 

GREEN, I.)UVENIA. ^W^^. lO, ^^J\l^Tve^^^ ^Ck^ 

Bora March 20, 1905; living Januf!?!^'^ ^^V^xcuse g^^^P/J^pTweie 
Green, Choctaw freedman roli, No. 52oSt ''^^^v.ot he thought tn^ 
citizen. No application of record, and the^ ^\Jient8 of ^^^®^e. aw^ 
in this respect is the statement of the fatherV ; felPTftS ^*^^ siiu tour 

too young. The marriage is shown by statll^ ^ freedman ro 

these people were married and had lived together^, fem- 
by the further fact that they have on the Choctii^^. plot*, 
children older than the ones they now apply for. ^fc) apP***^ father : A- V"- 

GREEN, Ruth A. V '"^^ t^\^late 

Born January 23, 1905; living January 4, 1911; female.\ ^ 

Green; noncitizen. Mother: Lizzie Green, Choctaw freecwitoer: Fi 
352. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because preseut%ce Fiai 
Additional testimony taken January 4, 1911. \. refus »rhom»s 

_ \ -mocta* 

Hall, Estoria. \ • i^. 

Born May 2, 1900; living March 4, 1906; female. Father .V . V^ 
Hall, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 5380. Mother: Malinda Hall, ifftther ' ^ ^ 
freedman roll. No. 819, as Malinda Jones. Application, March 'V,'? tbs 

Information thereof sent the department by telegram same day, W^ ^^^ 
did not reach Washington until March 5, 1907. This name Is i; 
list of 52 names included in the report of November 15, 1907, by 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. * Tj' 

Hall, Fallen a. r 

Bora September 13, 1905; living January 5, 1911; female. Pat^^; ^ 

Sumpter Hall; noncitizen. Mother: Susan Hall, Choctaw freedmau ^^^ 
No. 2883, as Susan Washington. No application of record. The la\w^, 
states that he did not know that the commission was taking chu^fgj'^ 

female. Father: t>ave 



127. 



128. 



until after the work had closed. 

Harkins, Annie. 

Bora July 29, 1903; Uving January 10, 1911 
Harkins, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2851. Mother: Mary Jane HarkUig^ 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2960, as Mary Jane Shields. Arki^Hr^^^i— ' 



July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 



Application! 



129. Harlan, Alexander. 

Born Sei)tember 26, 1907; living March 4, 1906; male. Father 
Harlan, ChlckaBaw freedman roll, No. 401. Mother: Isabinda 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3006. Application, August 8, 1906, 
because presented too late. 

130. Harlan, Linder. 

Bora March 4, 1903; living March 4, 1906; female. Fa the*: Joe 
Harlan, Chlckasiiw freedman roll, No. 450. Mother: Margaret inarlan, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3007. Application, August 8, 1906, it 'efnse^i 
because presented too late. * 




Digitized by 



Googk 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 81 

13L Habris, Edqab. 

About 8 years old and living Nov^nber 17, 1910; male. Father: Ed- 
ward Harris, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 588. Mother: Julia Harris, 
Choctaw freedmuu roll, No. 901. No application of record, and no 
reason given for failure. It appears, however, that the child's father 
died In 1903 or 1904. 

132. Harris, Willie. 

Bom June 23, 1905 ; living January 9, 1911 ; female. Father : Arthur 
Harris, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 734. Mother: Ella Harris, Choctaw 
freedman roll, No. 15^8 Ella Willlnms. No application of record, and 
no reason given for failure to matte one. 

133. Harrison, Carl. 

Age not shown; male. 

134. Harrison, Brillie. 

Age not shown; female. Father: Brigham Y. Harrison, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 1953. Mother: Mary Harrison, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 3489. Application presented March 4, 1907, and transmitted 
to the deimrtment by telegram March 4. 1907, but not received until 
March 5, 1907. These names are in the list of 52 names in the report of 
November 15, 1907, of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, 

135. Harvey, Asro Allen. 

Born July 4, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male. 

136. Harvey, Mary Elizabeth. 

Bom January 13, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Tyson 
Harvey; noncitlzen. Mother: Adelaide Harvey, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 2744. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

137. Henry, Laura. 

Bom September 18, 1905 ; living March 4, 1907 ; female. Father : Ran- 
dall Henry, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4082. Mother: Cora Henry; 
noncitlzen. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. 

338. Holiway, Clayton. 

Born Januarj' 2, 1904 ; living January 5, 1911 ; male. 

139. Holiway, Jefferson. 

Bom August 17, 1905; living January 5, 1911; male. Father: Joseph 
Holiway ; noncitlzen. Mother : Virginia Holiway, Choctaw freedman roll, 
No. 826, as Virginia Riley. Application, July 27, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. 

140. Hollis, Clevara. 

Bora January 12, 1906; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Tobe 
Hollis; noncitlzen. Mother: EJlla Hollis, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 
4393, as Ella Blunt. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because pre- 
sented too late. 

141. Hunter, Lillian. v 

Bom April 14, 1903; living January 9, 1911; female. Father: Wilte 
Hunter; noncitlzen. Mother: Mary Eliza Hunter, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 987; No application of record, and no reason for failure to 
make one. 

142. Hyatt, Cornelius. 

Bom August 17, 1905 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. Father : Cornelius 
Hyatt; noncitlzen. Mother: Celestris Hyatt, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 5385. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

143. IRVIN. TONEY. 

Bora February 20, 1905; living November 19, 1910; male. Father: 
Dixon Irvin; noncitlzen. Mother: Virginia Williams, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 2903. No application of record, and no reason given for failure 
to make one. 

144. Jackson, Addie. 

69282—13 6 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



82 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

• 
145. Jackson, Lovely. 

Both living January 7, IWl; female. Father: John Jackson, non- 
citizen. Mother: Catherine Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 818, 
as Catherine Cnblt. No application of record and no reason given for 
failure to make one. The testimony is conflicting as to the dates of 
birth, but it clearly shows that these children were bom prior to March 4, 
1906, and probably July 29. 1903, and October — , 1904. They were 
present at the hearing January 7, 1911, and had the appearance of being 
from 7 to 8 and from 5 to 6 years old, respectively. Application was 
made at the same time for Gabrella Jacksqn and Lulu Jackson, children 
of these same i)arent8, but the statements as to the dates of their births 
are so conflicting as to prevent favorable action on such application. 

14B. Jackson, Essie. 

Born August 22. 3904; living January 6, 1011; female. Father: Calvia 
Jacksou, not enrolled. Mother: Janie Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll, 
No. .5204. No application of record and no reason given for failure to 
make one. 

147. Jackson, Charlie Henby. 

Born November 1, 1902 ; living January 9, 1911 ; male. 

148. Jackson, Emma Pastoria. 

Bom March 8, 1905; living January 9, 1911; female. Father: William 
Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4080. Mother : Lillle Jackson, non- 
citizen. No application of record and no reason given for failure to make 
one, except the mother's statement that they were told they could not 
get the children on. The marriage of the r>arents is estnblished by pres- 
entation of marriage license issued from the United States court March 
24, 1900. and certificate showing solemnization of the marriage April 19, 
1900. 

149. Jackson, Curtis. 

Born December 8, 1903; living January 10, 1911; male. 

150. Jackson, Cluster. 

Bom August 13, 1904; living January 10, 1911; male. Father: Joe 
Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 297. Mother: Pinkie Jackson, 
noncitizen. No application of record and no reason given for failure to 
make one. No marriage license on file, but the testimony is to the efi*ect 
that the parents were married and lived together up until about three 
years after the birth of the younger child. 

151. Jackson, Isom. 

Bom November 16, 1905; living January 9, 1911 ; male. Father: Willie 
Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3936. Mother: Clarissa Jackson, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 497, as Clarissa Williams. No application 
and no reason given for failure to make one. 

152. Jackson, Merrill. 

Bora September 12, 1903; living November 18, 1910; male. 

153. Jackson, Elizabeth. 

Bom November 18, 1905; died May — . 1908; female. Father: S. B. 
Jackson; noncitizen. Mother: Mary Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 4134. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because presented too late. 
Additional testimony taken November IS, 1910. 

154. Jackson, Nora. 

About 10 years old; living January 6, 1911; female. Father: Alfred 
Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 735. Mother: Clarissa Jackson; 
noncitizen. No api)lication of record. These people have seven children 
older than Nora on the Choctaw freedman roll. The father states that 
there was some mistake made by which Nora's name was omitted. 

155. Jackson, Willis. 

Born April 8, 1903; living January 10, 1911; male. Father: Ben 
Jackson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 3937. Mother: Mary Jackson, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3997, as Mary McChristian. No application 
of record. No explanation for failure to make such application, except 
the statement of the mother : " I did try it once, but we didn't get him on. 
It didn't amount to anything." 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVIUZBD TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 88 

156. James, Emerson. 

Born Aprtl 1, 1905; Ihing March 4, 1906; male. Father: Jim James, 
CJhoctaw freedman roll, No. 3444. Mother: Molly James, Clioctaw 
freedman roll. No. 3451. Application March 4, 1907, reported to 
the department by telegram March 4, 1907, which did not reach the de- 
partment until March 5, 1007. This name is on the list covered by a 
report of November 15, 1007, of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes. 

157. Jailes, Ethek. 

Bom April 17, 1904: living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Isaac 
James, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1375. Mother: Agnes James, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 1370. Application, October 22, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

158. Jetfres, Beatrice. 

Born August 30, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. 

159. Jeffres, Mattdie. 

Born January 10, 1906: living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Henry 
Jeffres; noncitizen. Mother: Ada Jeffres, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
1050, as Ada Ilaywood. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because pre- 
sented too late. 

160. Johnson, Blanche. 

Bom May 15, 1904: living March 4, 3906; female. Father: Perry 
Johnson, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 725. Mother: Sallie Johnson, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 154, as Sallie Walker. Application, January 
30, 1907, refused because presented too late. 

161. Johnson, Charley. 

Bom May 2, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. 

162. Johnson, Sl 

Bom March 5, 1904: living March 4, 1006: male. Father: Martin 
Johnson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 784. Mother: Mary Johnson; non^ 
citizen. Application presented March 4, 1907, reported to the depart- 
meut by telegram March 4, 1907, which did not reach Washington until 
March 5, 1907. These names are in the list of 52 cases in the report 
November 15, 1907, of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. 

163. Johnson, Johnnte. 

Born June 4. 1890; living November 19, 1910; male. 

164. Johnson, Herman. 

Bom September 11, 1902; living November 19, 1910; male. Father: 
Harlan Johnson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 3955. Mother: Blla 
Johnson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 779. Application was made for 
enrollment of Johnnie Johnson April 24. 1899. with his mother and his 
brother, Joe Jackson. February 2S, 1907, this application was dis- 
missed by the CommlssloiTer to the Five Civilized Tribes i)ecau8e no 
proof bad been furnished showing that said Johnnie Johnson was living 
September 25. 1902. There is no application of record for the enrollment 
of Herman. The father states that he was told Herman was too young. 
The testimony given November 18 and 19, 1910, fixes the dates of the 
births of these boys and also shows they were living at that time. 

1C5. Jones, Annie. 

Born May 24, 1903; living November 19, 1910; female. 

166. Jones, Toney. 

Bom January 31, 1905: died ; male. Father: Thomas Jones; 

noncitizen. Mother: Mary Jones, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 847, as 
Mary Colbert. No application of record. The mother states that she 
tried several times to present this application, but " never did make no 
success." The date of Toney's death is not accurately settled. The 
only testimony on this point Is that of the mother, as follows: 

"Q. Is Toney dead? — A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. When did he die?— A. Dead about two or three years, I guess. 

"Q. When did you say he was bom?— A. Bom in 1905, January 31. 

/*Q. How old was he when he died? — A. About two years old, I guess, 
as near as I can get at it.*' 

This seems to sufficiently show that this child was living March 4, 1906. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



84 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

167. Jones, Charlotte. 

Born January 30, 1906; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Henry 
Jones, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1041. Mother: Ella Jones; non- 
citizen. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because not presented within 
time. 

168. Jones, Thubman. 

Born July 7, 1905; living January 6, 1911; male. Father: R. V. Jones; 
noncitizen. Mother: Emeline Jones, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 253, as 
Emeline Stephens. No application of record and no reason given for fail- 
ure to make such application. 

169. Kendricks, Nellie Elizabeth. 

Born August 27, 1904 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. Father : Bdmond 
Kendricks; noncitizen. Mother: Eliza Kendricks, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 1453. Application, January 15, 1907, refused because presented 
too late. 

170. Kirk, Henry. 

Born July 27, 1905; living January 7, 1911; male. Father: Robert 
Kirk, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 957. Mother: Georgia Kirk, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 1059, as Georgia Haywood. No application of record, 
and the only reason for failure to make one is the statement of the 
father that he was " always too late." 

171. Kirk, Mahala. 

Born October 2, 1905 ; living January 7, 1911 ; female. Father : Obediah 
Kirk, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 959. Mother: Mahala Kirk, now 
Smith; noncitizen. No application of record and no reason given for 
failure to make one. It appears that the father died in 1906. The mar- 
riage Is established by a witness present at the ceremony. 

172. Lewis, Adell. 

Bom September 20, 1903; living November 19, 1910; male. 

173. Lewis, Jesse. 

Bom June 14, 1905 ; living November 19, 1910 ; male. Father : Lycurgus 
Lewis, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2800. Mother: Elizabeth Lewis, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 3286. No application of record. When the 
father was asked why he did not make application for these boys his 
answer was, "I did try to make application once, but the notice was 
so short I didn't get to meet it. I didn't try but once, and when I got 
the notice I was just a day behind it and I couldn't get no blanks, and 
that's why they ain't on the roll." Both these boys were present at the 
hearing. 

174 Lewis Alex 

Born May 11, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. 

175 Lewis Lee G 

Bora March 30, 1905; living March*4, 1906; male. Father: Johnnie 
Lewis, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 5109. Mother: Rosa I-.ewis; non- 
citizen. Application July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 
The marriage of the parents Is shown by certificate filed January — , 1911. 

176. Lewis, Amos. 

Bom June 13, 1904; living January 9, 1911; male. Father: Emanuel 
Lewis, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 149. Mother: LUlle Lewis, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 150. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because pre- 
sented too late. 

177 Lewis Tohn 

Bom September 30, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Mon 
Lewis; noncitizen. Mother: Judy Lewis, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 
470. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

178. Lewis, Sirus. 

Born June 29, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: William 
Lewis, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 5408. Mother: Hattle Lewis; non- 
citizen. Application, February 19, 1907, refused because presented too 



late. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 86 

179. Lynch, Lillie Belle. 

Bom December 90, 1906; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: 
Nicholas Lynch, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 4761. Mother: Jennie 
Lynch ; noncitbsen. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented 
too late. Marriage license and certificate filed JanuaT7 — , 1911. 

180. McAfee, Robert. 

Bom January 18, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. 

181. McAfee, Roosevelt. 

Bom February 6, 1906; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Andrew 
McAfee, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 4191. Mother : Susan McAfee ; non- 
citizen. Robert Mc^Vfee listed for enrollment, but application reused 
February 14. 1907, because presented too late. No application for Roose- 
velt, and no reason given for failure to present one. 

182. McKkNNEY, ABD6HIA. 

Bom April 30, 1903; living March 4, 1906; female. 

183. McKenney, Large. 

Born June 25, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Louis Mc- 
Kenney, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1673. Mother: Lemma McKenney; 
noncitlzen. Application July 27, 1906, refused because presented too late. 
With the papers is a purported copy ©f a marriage certificate showing 
this couple married July 25, 1S95. 

184. Mabrie, Duckie May. 

Bora January 26, 1906; living March 4, 1906; female. Illegitimate 
chUd of Clora Nunnally, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 5329, by L. M. 
Mabrie, not identified as a Choctaw freedman. Application, July 26, 
1906, refused l>ecause presented too late. 

185. Maharoy, James E. 

Bora August 2, 1903 ; living November 18, 1910 ; male. Father : George 
Mahardy, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4132. Mother: CalUe Mahardy; 
noncitlzen. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. Additional testimony November 18, 1910. 

186. Maniving, Alma, female. 

187. Manwing, Allen, male. 

Twins; bora April 10, 1905; living March 4, 1906. Father: Brlsco 
Manning; noncitlzen. Mother: Mandy Maiming, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 3608. Application, January 24, 1007, refused because presented too 
late. 

1S8. Meadows, Elmer. 

Horn February 5. 1904; living March 4, 1006; male. Father: Willie 
Colbert, Cho<*taw freedman roll. No. 2400. Mother: i:stella Meadows, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1263. Illegitimate cliild. Ai>i>licatlon, July 
26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

189. Morris, Sammie. 

Born August 9, 1004: living March 4, ICOG; male. Father: N. IL 
Morris; noncitlzen. Mother: Creasle Morris, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 2204. Application. August 9, 1006, refused because presented too late. 

100. Nail, Newton. 

Bom August 15, 1903: living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Alex 
Nail. Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2027. Mother: Rose Nail, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 2028. Application, July 20, 1000, refused because 
presented too late. 

191. Nelsow, Pearl. 

Bom May 27, 1005; living January 10, 1011: male. Father: William 
Nelson, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1205. Mother: Rosy Nel.son, Choc- 
taw eerfdman roll, No. 3096, as Rosy Brunner. No application of record. 
and no resison given for failure to make one. 

192. Newton, Archie. 

Bora March 15, 1803; living March 4, 1000; male. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



86 FIVE CIVIUZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

193. Newton, Vitie. 

Born March 12, 1005; Uvliig March 4, 1906; female. Father: Henry 
Newton; noncitizeu. Mother: Lizzie Newton, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 5832. Application, Julj 27, 1906, refused J)ecauBe presented too late. 
No reason shown for failure to make application for enrollment of Archie 
under the act of July 1, 1902. 

194. Nolan, Robert Lee. 

Bom May 25, 1903 ; living November 18, 1910 ; male. 

195. Nolan, Claiborne. 

Bom August 1, 1904; living November 18, 1910; male. 

196. Nolan. Qeobgb Washington. 

•Bom August 13, 1906; living November 18, 1910; male. Father: 
Frank Nolan; n<Hicitizen. Mother: Ella Nolan, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 4013, as Ella Guess. Application, August 8, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. Additional testimony November 18, 1910. 

197. NuNLEY, Edna. 

Bom February 20, 1905; living January 7, 1911; female. Father: 
Charles Nunley; noncitlzen. Mother: Ida Smith, Choctaw freedman 
roll, No. 803. No application of record, and no reason for failure to 
make one, except that the child was supposed to be too young. Addi- 
tional testimony taken January 7, 1911. 

198. Owens, Martha Ann. 

Bom November 18, 1899 ; living January 4, 1911 ; female. 

199. Owens, Henrt. 

Bom January 26, 1902; died "Christmas," 1907; male. 

200. Owens, Simon. 

Bom Feb. — , 1905; living January 4, 1911; male. Father: Tom 
Owens, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2779. Mother: Charlotte Owens, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2780. It appears from the records that 
applications were made December 29, 1902, for the enrollment of Martha 
Ann and Henry, and that no action was taken thereon by the Commis- 
sion or the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. The names of 
these two children were Included In the list of 52 reported by the com- 
missioner November 15, 1907. No application of record for Simon, and 
no reason given for failure to make one. 

201. Owens, Abner. 

Bom July 9, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. 

202. Owens, Nathaniel. 

Bom February 8, 1906; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Sam 
Owens. Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1381. Mother: Ida Oweus, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 4208. Application, February 1, 1907, refused because 
presented too late. 

203. Pp:gues, Albert. 

Born July 3, 1904 ; living January 9, 1911 ; male. 

204. Pbgues, Irma. 

Born January 24, 1906; living January 9, 1911; female. Father: John 
Wesley Pegues; noncitizeu. Mother: Ada Pegues, Choctaw freedman 
roll, No. 600, as Ada Gllmore. Application, Febmary 6, 1907, refused 
because presented too late. 

205. Perkins, Lutitia. 

Born December 17, 1905; living January 4, 1011; female. Father: 
William Perkins, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2914. Mother: Gracie 
Perkins, Choctaw Freedman roll. No. 4437, as Gracie Adams. No ap- 
plication of record, and no reason given for failure to make one. Addi- 
tional testimony taken January 4, 1911. 

206. Perry, Lavera. 

Born September 15, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: 
John Perry, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1171. Mother: Etta Perry; 
noncitizeu. Application, July 20, 3906, refuseii because presented too 
late. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZBD TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 87 

207. Peeby, Richard R. 

Born ; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Allen Perry, 

Choctaw freedman roll, No. 4876. Mother: Jlncy Jane Perry, CJhoctaw 
freedman roll. No. 5280. Application, July 27, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. 

208. PiEBCE, Celestine. 

Bom May 5, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Louis 
Pierce, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 4629. Mother: Rebecca Pierce^ 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 3116. Application, July 26, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

209. PiTCHLYNN, AlBENEB. 

Bom March 10, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Horace 
Pitchlynn, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 914. Mother: Millie Pltchlynn, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 171. Application, July 26, 1906, refused 
because presentjed too late. 

210. Powell, David. 

Bora February 1, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. 

211. Powell, Mariedell. 

Bom Sept^nber 9, 1905 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. Father : Har- 
rison Powell, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2128. Mother: M«rtha Powell, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4786. Application, July 26, 1906, refused be- 
cause presented too late. 

212. Pratt James 

Bom July 27, 1905; living January 10, 1911; male. Father: Garfield 
Pratt, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1177. Mother : Lula Pratt, Chickasaw 
freedman roll. No. 4171, as Lula Holman. No application and no reason 
given for failure to make one. The child was present at the hearing 
January 10, 1911. 

213. Pratt, Sarah. 

Born August — , 1905; living January 10, 1911; female. Father: Lem 
Pratt, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1178. Mother: Alice Pratt, Choctaw 
freedman roll, No. 1093, as Alice Mills, jr. No application of record. 
When the father was asked why he had not made application, he re- 
plied : " Didn't think there was no use." 

214. Reed, Henry. 

Bom March 16, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male. 

215. Reed, Minnie. 

Bora December 11, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: 
Abram Reed, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3910. Mother: Emma Reed. 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1911. Application, August 8, 1906, refused 
because presented too late. 

216. Beeves, Leola. 

• Bom March — , 1905; living January 6, 1911; female. Father: Tucker 
Reeves. Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2793. Mother : Rennie Reeves, Choc- 
taw freedman roll. No. 2794. No application of record and no reason 
given for failure to present one. 

217 Rice Peter. 

Bom July 10, 1903 ; living January 4, 1911 ; male. Father : John Rice ; 
noncitizen. Mother: America Rice. Choctnw freedmnn roll. No. 3888. 
No application of record and the only explanation of failure to present 
one Is the statement of the mother that she was told they were not en- 
rolling children of this one's age. 

218. Riddle, Cornelius. (Male.) 

219. Riddle, Vanda. (Female.) 

Twins; bom December 28, 1905; living March 4, 1906. Father: John 
Riddle, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2717. ^lother: Harriet Cheadle; 
noncitizen. Application, January 25, 1907, refused because presented too 
late. Proof of marriage on file in connection with the enrollment of an 
older child. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



88 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

220. Riley, Garfield. » 

Bom March 16, 1905; living January 9, 1911; male. Father: William 
M. Riley, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 3159. Mother: Veva Rl'*»y; non- 
citizen. No application of record and no explanation given for failure to 
present one. A copy of the marriage certificate Is filed. 

221. Riley, Gebtie. 

About 12 years old and living January 9, 1911; female. Illegitimate 
child of Peggy McDanlel, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 16r>. the putative 
father being William Riley, alleged to be a Choctaw freedman. No ap- 
plication of record and no reason given for failure to make one. 

222. Robinson, J ana. 

Bom May 18, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Vence 
Robinson; noncitlzen. Mother: Nina Robinson, Choctaw freedman roU, 
No. 4222, as Nina Rose. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because pre- 
sented too late. 

223. Robinson, Luana. 

Bom August 26, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. 

224. Robinson, Fannie. 

Born February 26, 1906 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. Father : J. R. 
Robinson ; noncitlzen. Mother : Maria Robinson, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 4382. as Maria Johnson. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. • 

225. Russell, Tobias Lewis. 

Bom December 16, 1902; living January 10, 1911; male. 

226. Russell, James. 

Born August 22, 1904: living January 10, 1011; male. Father: Lorenzo 
Russell, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 4541. Mother: Mattie RusseU, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4542. Application, January 30. 1907, refused 
because presented too late. 

227. Sandebs, John Henry. 

Bom April 15, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: George 
Sanders; noncitlzen. Mother: Ix)ui8a Sanders. Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 3751, as Louisa Ingram. Application, November 28, 1906, refused be- 
cause presented too late. 

228. Shoals. Larence. 

Bom April 6, 1005; living November 18, 1910; male. Father: Alfred 
Shoals, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 4194. Mother: Nina Shoals; non- 
citizen. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

529. Shoals, Minnie. 

About 7 years old, and living November IS, 1910; female. Father: 
Pink Shoalj^, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 836. Mother: Josephine Shoals, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 837. No application of record. The father 
claims that he attempted to apply for this child, but was told It was 
too late. 

230. Simpson, Estell. 

Born April 14, 1904; living January 7, 1911; female. Father: Oscar 
Simpson; noncltizen. Mother: Penny Simpson, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 519. No application of record and no explanation given for failure 
to present one. 

231. Simpson, Reuben. 

Bom April 23, 1903: living January 9, 1911; male. Father: Jesse 
Simpson: noncitlzen. Mother: Ellen Slmiwon. Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 332, as Ellen Harris. No application of record and no explanation 
given for failure to present one. 

232. Smith, Amos. 

Bom April 1, 1905; living January 10. 1011: male. Father: Walter 
Smith: noncitlzen. Mother: Elzira Smith, Choctaw fi-eedman roll. No. 
1179. No application of record and no explanation for failure to present 
one. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 89 

233. SiciTH, Jennie. 

Born August 22, 1905; living January 6, 1911; female. Father: Web- 
ster Smith, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 801. Mother: Isabella Smith; 
noucitizen. No application of record and no explanation of failure to pre- 
sent one. The marriage is shown by witnesses who were present at the 
ceremony. 

234. Smith, Mattie. 

Bom August 2, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Oscar 
Smith; noncitlzen. Mother: Susan Smith, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 
939, as Susan Shoals. Application, August 9, 1906, refused because pre- 
sented too late. 

235. Spencer, Zula. 

Bom July 12, 1904 ; living November 18, 1910 ; female. 

236. Spencer, Thelma.. 

Bom November 15. 1905; living November 18, 1910; female. Father: 
Samr Spencer; noncitizen. Mother: Sarah Spencer, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 424, as Sarah McGuire. No application of record. The mother 
says that she tried to enroll these children, but that the time had passed. 

237. Spring, Lewis Bird. 

Bom March 24, 1905 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. Father : Levi Spring, 
Choctaw freedman roll. No. 1406. Mother: Henryetta Spring; non- 
citizen. Application, December 21, 1906, refused because presented too 
late. Certificate of marriage on file. 

238. Stewart, Sam. 

Bom August 3, 1904; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Mitchell 
Stewart, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 3f)57. Mother: Josephine Stewart; 
noncitizen. Application, December 26, 1900, refused because presented 
too late. Marriage license and certificate filed January 26, 1911. 

239. Thomas, Cora. 

Bora February — , 1904; living January 4, 1911; female. Father: 
Tom Thomas; noncitizen. Mother: Anna Thomas, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 2791, as Anna Hills. No application of record. When asked 
why application was not made, the mother replied : "Didn't have no way 
to come, and didn't have no money." 

240. Thompson, Claud Ward. 

Bora Febraary 10, 1903; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: :Wade 
Thompson; noncitizen. Mother: Mary Thompson, Choctaw freedman 
roll, No. 129. Application, December 3, 1906, refused because presented 
too late. 

241. Thompson, Wade. 

Bora February 10, 1902; living March 4, 1906; male. 

242. Thompson, Cora. 

Bora July 11, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Wade 
Thompson; noncitizen. Mother: Mary Thompson, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 129. No application of record and no explanation of failure to 
present one. 

243. TwiTTiE, Charley. 

Bora April 14, 1904; living January 4, 1911; male. Father: Jim 
Twittie; noncitizen. Mother: Fannie Twittle, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 604, as Fannie Frazler. No application of record. The mother 
states that she attempted to enroll this child, but did not get the applica- 
tion in in time. The child was present at the hearing January 4, 1911. 

244 Tyler Wavly. 

Bora Aprii 14, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Newton 
Tyler; noncitizen. Mother: Dora Tyler, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 
2720. Appllctitlon, July 27, 1906, refused because presented too late. 

245 Vina Plumy. 

Bora July 2, 1903; living January 6. 1911; male. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



90 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

246. A'iNA, Gebtrude. 

Born July 17, 1905; living January 6. 1911; finale. Father: John 
Vina, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 115. Mother : Florence Vina ; noncitlzcii. 
No application of record and no explanation given for failure to present 
one. The marriage of the parents is shown by witnesses who were 
present at the ceremony. 

247. Walker, Noel. 

Bom Jflnuary 16, 1902; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Jesse 
Walker, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 967. Mother: Maria Walker, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 968. Application, February 19, 1907, refused 
because presented too late. 

248. Walzen, Ann. 

Bom June 2, 1903; living March 4, 1906; female. 

249. Walzen, Emmett. 

Bora October 16, 1905; living March 4. 1906; male. Father: Rush 
Walzen; noncitlzen. Mother: Louisa Walzen, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 3147, as Louisa Walter. Applications, January 29, 1907, refused be- 
cause presented too late. 

250 ^Vabd Howard 

Bom October 7, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. 

251. Ward Cindartlla. 

Bom September 1, 1905: living March 4. 1906; female. Father: 
Henry Ward, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2715. Mother: Fannie Ward, 
Chickasaw freedman roll. No. 3080. Applications, August 9, 1906, re- 
fused because presented too late. 

252. Warner, Mamie. 

Bora December 12, 1902; living March 4, 1906; female. 

253. Warner, Hinies. 

Bora April 24, 1904; living March 4. 1906; male. 

254. Warner, Jesse. 

Bora January 6, 1006; living March 4. 1906: mnle. Father: Charlie 
Warner. Choctaw Freedman Roll, No. 284. Mother: Winnie Warner, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 473,. as Winnie Lewis. Application, July 26, 
1906, refused because presented too late. 

255. Warren, Cora. 

• Born March 3, 1005: living January 5, 1911; female. Father: Ivey 
Warren; noncitlzen. Mother: Nanny Warren, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 707, as Nanny Barry. No application of record and no explanation 
for failure to present one. 

256. Wasiitncton, Alrfrt. 

Tblrty-pevoii roars of v^o: living January 4, 3911: male. Father: 
George Wasbington: noncitlzen. Mother: Bathya Washington, Choctaw 
freedman roll. No. 491. No application of record. Applicant states 
that be did not mt^ko application with his mother and brothers and sis- 
ters becaiiFP be was f\cU at the time and was not able to go. It is shown 
that be has two brothers and two sisters enrolled as Cboctaw freednien. 
and tbat he has resided In the Choctaw Nation all his life. 

257. Washington, Pkarltk. 

About 12 years old : living January 4,1011 : female. Father : Albert Wash- 
ington, not enrolled, but apparently entitled to enrollment, as shown above. 
Mother : Klizn W}>sliington. alleged to be n Cboctaw freedman, who died prior 
to enrollment. No application of record l>eeause neither parent enrolled. 

25S. Washington, John TIenry. 

Bora , 1902; living January 4, 1911; male. 

259. Washington, Booker. 

Born January 3, 1005: living January 4. 1911; male. 

260. Washington, Shawnee. 

Born January 13. 1906; living January 4, 1911; male. Father: Albert 
Washington. Choctaw freedman, but not enrolled. Mother: Etha Wash- 
ington, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 305. as Etha Butler. No applica- 
tion of record, and no explanation given for failure to make one. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 91 

2C1. Websteb, Ollie. 

Born October 21, 1906; living January 10, 1911; female. Father: 
Lewis Webster, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 30. Mother: Henrlettii 
Webster, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2903, as Henrietta Shields. Ap- 
plication, December 31, 1906, refused because presented too late. Addi- 
tional proof January 10, 1911. 

2Q2. Wiggins, Marel. 

Bom January 1, 1904 ; living January 7, 1911 ; female. Father : Frank 
Wiggins; noncltizen. Mother: Lithy Wiggins, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 4921, as Lithy Goodlow. No application of record. The mother, 
when asked why Phe did not make application, replied: "I didn't know 
anything about it." 

283. WnxiAMS, Ada. 

Bom January 2, 1904; living March 4, 3906; female. 

264. Williams, Mamie. 

Bom January 27. 1906; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Tom 
Williams; noncltizen. Mother: Emma Williams. Choctaw freedman 
roll, No. 569. Application, Dec^nber 3, 1906, refused because presented 
too late. 

265. Williams, A lick May. 

Bom May 24, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. 

266. Williams, Amos. 

Bom August 26, 1905; living March 4, 3906: male. Father: Tom 
Williams; noncltizen. Mother: Sarah Williams, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 4408, as Sarah Homer. Application, February 1, 1907, refused be- 
cause presented too late. 

267. Williams, Cecie. 

Born February 14, 3903; living January 9, 1911; female. 

268. Williams, Alice. 

Bora August 14, 1904; living January 9, 1911; female. Father: An- 
thony Williams; noncltizen. Mother: Cora Williams, Choctaw freed- 
man roll. No. 494. No application of record. The mother states that 
she tried to make an application, but Is not clear before whom she 
appeared. 

269. Williams. Ella. 

Bora July 28, 1905; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Andy 
Williams, Choctaw freedman roll. No. 2083. Mother: Emma Williams, 
Choctaw freedman roll, No. 2084. Application, January 7, 1907, refused 
because presented too late. 

270. Williams, Leroy. 

Born September 15, 1902 ; living January 5, 1911 ; male. 

271. Williams, Har^-ey. 

Bora October 24, 1904; living January 5, 1911; male. Father: Sam 
Williams; noncltizen. Mother: Mollie Williams, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 231. No application of record, and no explanation of failure to 
present one. 

272. Williams, Joseph. 

Born October, 1904; living January 9, 1911; male. Father: Joseph 
Williams. Choctaw freedman roll, No. 271. Mother: Emma Williams, 
Choctaw feedman roll. No. 4038, as Emma dibit. No application of 
record and no explanation of failure to present one. 

273. Williams, Ora. 

Bom November 24, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: 
Simon Williams, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 1096. Mother: Kettle 
Williams, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 956. Application, July 26, 1906, 
refused because presented too late. 

274. Williams, Rhoda. 

Born Febmary 18, 1906; living January 6, 1911; female. Father: 
Jerry Williams: noncltizen. Mother: Elvira Williams, Choctaw freed- 
man roll, No. 4359. No application of record and no explanation of 
failure to present one. 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



92 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

275. Willis, Gus. 

About 6 years old and living January 16, 1911 ; male. Father : Name 
not given. Mother: Ruth Willis, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 9d3. Ap- 
plication, July 26, 1900, refused because presented too late. Additional 
affidavits filed January 16, 1911. 

276. Woods, John. 

Bom August, 1903; living January 7, 1911; male. Father: Banjo 
Woods; noncitizen. Mother: Clarissa Woods, Choctaw freedman roil. 
No. 641. No application of record and no explanation for failure to make 
one. The child was present at the hearing. 

277. WooTEN, Vera. 

Bom May 30, 1904; living March 4, 1906; female. Father: Jerry 
Wooten; noncitizen. Mother: Sallie Wooten, Choctaw freedman roll. 
No. 4615. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too late. 
Testimony taken November 19, 1910, corroborates the proofs with the 
application. 

278. Weight, Vera. 

Bom December 10, 1903; living January 11, 1911; female. Father: 
Mack Wright; noncitizen. Mother: Ruthy Wright, Choctaw freedman 
roll. No. 1010. No application of record and no explanation of failure 
to present one. 

279 Zacheirt SiifOi7 

Born February 13, 1905; living March 4, 1906; male. Father: Ell 
Zackery; noncitizen. Mother: Nancy Zackery, Choctaw freedman roll, 
No. 3825, as Nancy Boyd. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because 
presented too late. 

280. Carter, Annie. 

Born April 26, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; female. 

281. Carter, Daniel. 

Bora December 10, 1903 ; living March 4, 1906 ; male. Father : Milton 
Carter; noncitizen. Mother: Julia Carter, Choctaw freedman roll, No. 
4618. Application, July 26, 1906, refused because presented too lata No 
additional testimony was taken in this case, and hence it is not known 
whether these children were still living at the date of the recent 
investigation. 

Department of the Interior, 
Commissioner to the Five Civn^izED Tribes, 

Micskogee^ Okla.^ Jarmary 27, 1911. 
Hon. W. C. Pollock, 

Assistant Attorney^ Interior Department^ Washington^ D. C. 
Sir: With reference to tlie enrollment of Indians confined in penal 
or eleemosynary institutions, I he^ to advise that of the 768 Indians 
who have been confined at one time or another during the past 10 
vears at the United States penitentiary at I^avenworth, Kans., 542 
have been identified as members of one of the Five Civilized Tribes 
and 98 as Indians coming from parts of the United States which 
would appear to indicate that they were members of other tribes of 
Indians. In making a final investigation of Indians in said institu- 
tion a list of 55 was prepared of persons who died during confine- 
ment or who were discharged within six months prior to, or subse- 
quent to, December 1, 1905, the date prescribed under the act of 
Congress approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 137), as being the 
limitation of time during which applications for enrollment could 
be received. Of this 55, 23 were identified, which identification in- 
cludes all who are still confined in the penitentiary or who have been 
but recently discharged. With reference to the 32 remaining un- 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 93 

identified, all possible data were secured from the records of the 
penitentiary, and letters were addressed to the parties themselves, 
their relatives, friends, and attorneys in attempts at identification : 
however, the great majority of these commmiications have been re- 
turned undelivered. In my experience, however, in making this 
investigation I do not believe that a single person failed in enroll- 
ment by reason of having been confined in either the above or the 
Atlanta Penitentiary. The fact that they can not be identified comes 
from these persons using an alias to conceal their identities or 
by reason of misunderstanding of the authorities in setting out their 
names or the fact that so many have three or four names. For in- 
stance, I found Littletown Birdhead, still confined in the peniten- 
tiary, who stated that his name was Talof Harjo, and is enrolled as 
a Creek Indian by blood opposite No. 7501. 

There were 49 Indians received to May 23, 1910, in the Atlanta 
Penitentiary, of Georgia, of which 43 have been identified as members 
of the Five Civilized Tribes. Of the six not so identified four were 
discharged sufficient time prior to December 1, 1905, to have returned 
and made application for enrollment; one was discharged February 3, 
1906, and can not be located ; and the sixth, Roscoe Hamilton, claims 
to derive his Indian blood from his mother, Catherine Hamilton, and 
she states that she is a Cherokee Indian, but her name can not be 
identified upon any of the tribal rolls. 

Investigation of the Odd Fellows' Home near Checotah, Okla., 
developed that only eight of the children were supposed to have 
Indian blood. Of these eight, five were found to be enrolled and 
allotted, and the claim of the others, viz, Cecil Edward, Alfred D., 
and Mary Caroline McMillan, who were 16, 14, and 12 years of age, 
respectively, was found to be based upon the fact that their imcle, 
Andrew Jackson McMillan, married a Chickasaw Indian and was 
himself enrolled as an intermarried white. 

In the Cherokee Orphans' Home at Pryor all children have been 
enrolled with the exception of two boys, whose cases have been 
investigated by Mr. Mills. 

In the Chickasaw Orphan Home at Lebanon, Okla., all the inmates 
have been enrolled; likewise the Creek Orphans' Home at Okmulgee, 
Okla., with one exception, viz, Mattie Byrd, whose case is in the hands 
of Mr. Bliss. 

In the Armstrong Academy all have been enrolled ; likewise in the 
TuUahassee Boardmg School at TuUahassee, Okla. 

In the Wheelock Orphan Academy at Millerton, Okla., all the 
inmates have been enrolled. 

In the Murrow Indian Orphan Home all have been enrolled with 
the exception of the four Archibald children, whose cases Mr. Bliss 
has. 

All of the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes in the insane asylum 
at Canton, S. Dak., have been enrolled. 
Eespectfully, 

Dixon H. Bynum, 

Chief Clerk. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



94 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 



Department op the Interior, 
Washington^ Fe^yruary 12^1910, 
Hon. Moses E. Clapp, 

Chairman Com/mittee on Indictn Affairs^ 

United States Senate. 

Sir : The matter of adding names to the rolls of citizenship of the 
Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Tribes of In- 
dians, usually designated as the Five Civilized Tribes, has been the 
subject of considerable discussion before your committee and this 
department. 

The work of ascertaining the membership of these tribes and 
making rolls thereof was begun under the act of June 10, 1896 (29 
Stat., 339), wliich provided for applications for membership in said 
tribes to the commission theretofore constituted and known as the 
Commission to the Five Ci\nlized Tribes, to the constituted court or 
committee designated by the several tribes, with the further pro- 
vision that any applicant aggrieved by the decision of the tribal 
authority or the commission might appeal from such decision to the 
United States district court. This act further purported to con- 
firm the rolls of citizenship of the several tribes as then existing. 

The act of June 7, 1897 (30 Stat., 83), defined the words "rolls of 
citizenship " as used in the act of June 10, 1896, as meaning " the last 
authenticated rolls of each tribe which have been approved by the 
council for the nation and the descendants of those appearing on such 
rolls, and such additional names and their descendants as have been 
subsequently added either by the council of such nation, the duly 
authorized court thereof, or the commission, under the act of June 
10, 1896," and provided that all other names appearing upon such 
rolls should be open to investigation for a period of six months. 

The act of June 28, 1898 (30 Stat., 495), contained further pro- 
visions for making up the rolls of membership of these tribes. Like 
provisions are also found in the act of May 31, 1900 (31 Stat., 221), 
applicable to all the tribes, and in the acts of March 1, 1901 (31 Stat., 
861), and of June 30, 1902 (32 Stat., 500), as to the Creek Tribe; in 
the act of Julv 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 716), as to the Cherokee Tribe; and 
in the act of\July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 641), as to the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Tribes. By this last act a court was constituted, after- 
wards known as the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court. 
Other provisions, not necessary to specifically refer to, are found in 
the various annual Indian appropriation acts, and by the act of April 
26, 1906 (34 Stat., 137), other provisions were made^ and it was there 
declared : 

That the rolls of the tribes affected by this act shall be fully completed on or 
before the fourth day of March, nhieteen hundred and seven, aud the Secretary' 
of the Interior shall have no jurisdiction to approve any enrollment of any per- 
son after said date. 

Notwithstanding this declaration, that act made provision for the 
enrollment of a new class, that is, of children who were minors, living 
March 4, 1906, whose parents had been enrolled as members of any 
of the tribes or had applications for enrollment then pending. This 
materially increased the work of making up these rolls. 

Complaints had been made of various rulings of this department 
in enrollment cases, and May 29, 1906, after the enactment of the 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 95 

provision closing the rolls March 4, 1907, this department submitted 
to the Attorney General of the United States two cases involving 
disputed questions of law arising in connection with many applica- 
tions for enrollment, reauesting his opinion thereon. ^Naturally, 
cases coming up for consideration and involving these same questions 
were laid aside to await the opinion of the Attorney General. No 
opinion having been received, the department, January 19, 1907, by 
direction of the President, transmitted other cases to the Attorney 
General for his opinion. His opinion covering all the cases thus sub- 
mitted was rendered February 19, 1907. (26 Ops., 127.) 

The Attorney General held diflPerent views on some of these ques- 
tions from those entertained by this department, and upon which 
decisions had been rendered in many cases. In the two weeks remain- 
ing for completing the rolls of citizenship an effort was made to 
applv the ruling of the Attorney General to cases then pending in 
the department and to cases which had been theretofore decided con- 
trary to those rulings. The large number of cases thus affected, in 
connection with the very great number which were received from the 
field by the department, constituted such a great amount of work as 
rendered it impossible to give to each separate case that consideration 
which it ought to have nad and would have had in the ordinary 
course of procedure. All cases then pending were, however, acted 
upon. It happened that a number of cases which had been acted upon 
by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, the successor to 
the commission, were forwarded to the department prior to March 4, 
1907, but did not reach Washington until March 6 or later. These 
cases, of course, received no consideration by the Secretary of the 
Interior, and the applicants interested therein hare not had a final 
adjudication of their claims. 

Complaints have been made that applicants were wrongfully re- 
jected because of the press of work l)efore the department during 
the last few weeks of enrollment, because of misconstruction of the 
laws by the commission and by the department, because of inadequate 
and inequitable provisions in the laws, and in respect of the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Tribes because of unwarranted decisions by the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court. It may be assumed that 
there are just grounds for some of the complaints, but it is believed 
that as to the very large majority they have no equitable basis. The 
rolls as they now stand contain something over 100,000 names. In 
determining what names should be placed on these rolls the claims 
of many thpusands were considered and denied. In the course of a 
work of such magnitude mistakes no doubt were made. The most 
persistent demand for reopening this work comes from parties who 
claim a right to recognition as members of the Choctaw and Chicka- 
saw Tribes. 

It has been suggested that the act of August 15, 1894 (28 Stat., 
286, 305), be amended so as to permit all persons who are in whole 
or in part of Choctaw or ChicKasaw Indian blood or descent and 
entitled to share in the common property of Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Indians, or who claim to be so entitled or claim to have been unlaw- 
fully denied participation in such common property, to commence 
the prosecution of any action in relation to their right thereto in 
the proper district or circuit court of the United States. You sub- 
mitted draft of such a bill to the Indian Office that report might be 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



96 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

made thereon before its introduction. It was sent to the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, who made report thereon under 
date of November 3, 1909. A copy of that report is herewith for 
your information; also a protest from the Choctaw Tribe, through 
its national council, against reopening the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
rolls, passed by said council at its regular session in October, 1908. 
As said by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, the enact- 
ment of such a law would operate to reopen the whole subject matter, 
necessitating a review of all the cases which had been adversely 
decided by the United States courts, the Secretary of the Interior, 
and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court. Not onlv would 
it involve this, but it would also involve consideration oi claims 
which have not heretofore been presented to or considered by any 
of these tribunals. It is not Imlieved that any such injustice has 
been done in making up these rolls as Avould justify the enactment 
of such a law. 

Another proposition is to vgst the Secretary of the Interior with 
jurisdiction to reconsider all cases wherein the claims to recognition 
and enrollment have been heretofore adversely decided and to receive 
and adjudicate new applications for enrollment. This would, like 
the other proposition, open up the whole subject matter, substituting 
the Interior Department for the courts as the reviewing tribunal.- 

This department, however, is not prepared to recommend that any 
tribunal be authorized or constituted to receive and pass upon, or to 
review and reconsider, all manner of applications which have been 
or may be submitted by claimants seeking enrollment as citizens and 
freedmen of these tribes. It is believed that to do so would be 
unwise and inadvisable in the extreme, unjust to the tribes, and 
unwarranted by anything which has been submitted by those who 
claim that they have been unjustly deprived of Indian citizenship. 
Moreover, it would undoubtedly result in much expense and final 
disappointment to the majority of the applicants, many of whose 
cases have been already adjudicated after full hearings at which 
claimants had ample opportunity to present and did present all the 
evidence which they could educe in support of their claims. In 
short, the department is absolutely opposed to any action which 
would be in the nature of a general reopening of the citizenship rolls 
of the Five Civilized Tribes. 

Various suggestions have beeii made for legislation which it is 
claimed will not involve a general reopening of the enrollment work, 
but which will afford relief to persons whose claims are especially 
meritorious. These suggestions have been received from various 
sources and are submitted in somewhat concrete form that you may 
be fully advised in the premises. 

It has been suggested that tlie Secretary of the Interior be vested 
with authority to reconsider and readjudicate that class of cases in 
which adverse action was taken by him in the interval between Feb- 
ruary 19 and March 4, 1907. In support of the claims of this class 
of persons it is urged that, owing to the vast amount of work which 
devolved upon the Secretary of the Interior at that time, many 
errors were made, both of fact and law, in the adjudication of the 
cases then pending. It is also urged that the opinion of the Attorney 
General of February 19, 1907, referred to above, was misunderstood 
and misapplied, owing to the hurry and confusion incident to that 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CmUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 97 

period ; furthermore, that many persons whose cases had been heard 
upon the merits of the same and adjudicated by the Connnission to 
the Five Civilized Tribes and by its successor in favor of said appli- 
cants were finally denied enrollment solely upon the jurisdictional 
grounds upon which said opinion was based. The maximum number 
of cases of this class in the various tribes is set forth in a letter, 
dated December 20, 1909, from the Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, copy of which is herewith. 

A second class embraces those claimants whose applications were 
received and considered by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes prior to March 4, 1907, but which were not forwarded to the 
Secretary of the Interior in time for action. Briefly stated, it is 
claimed that these persons failed to secure enrollment through no 
fault of their own, but solely through delay or inadvertence, and 
that their rights have never been finafly adjudicated. The names of 
these claimants and the pertinent facts connected with each case are 
set f()i*th in a i-eport rendered by the Commissioner to the Five Civ- 
ilized Tribes, dated November 15, 1907, a copy of which is herewith. 

A third class embraces applicants whose names appear in a list of 
claimants prepared in the department since March 4, 1907. This 
list, copy of which is inclosed, after considerable investigation in the 
field as well as further examination of existing records, was prepared 
for use as a memorandum of practically all of the cases which had 
been brought to the attention of the department, which are alleged 
to be of unusual merit. The statements appearing in connection with 
the various cases are not to be taken as final findings, but merely as a 
recoi-d of the information thus far obtained by the department, some 
of which rests largely upon informal or ex parte statements. Said 
list also includes some persons coming within the other classes. Some 
of the applicants of this class were identified as Mississippi Choctaws 
a few days or weeks prior to March 4, 1907, and who, by reason of 
the closing of the rolls on said date, were deprived of the usual period 
for removing to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country and for submitting 
proof of residence therein. As to these Mississippi Choctaws, it has 
been suggested that they be allowed a limited time for removal to said 
country in lieu of time to which they would have been entitled under 
the Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement. In fact, it is understood that 
some of them had actually removed thereto prior to March 4, 1907. 

Another dass of persons claim to have been deprived of Indian 
citizenship because, being minors or otherwise under legal disability, 
no application was made for their enrollment, or if applications were 
made their cases were not properly followed up and presented. As 
to this class it has been suggested that the Secretary of the Interior 
be vested with jurisdiction for a brief period of time to receive appli- 
cations for enrollment, with the undei'standing that the right to apply 
shall be limited strictly to persons who were minors, orphans, prison- 
ers, or mentally incompetent during the periods provided by law or 
administrative regulation for the making of applications. It has 
also been suggested that this class be made to include full-blood In- 
dians who would, if enrolled, be subject to the restrictions upon the 
alieniation of allotted lands. 

It has been suggested that an investigation be made, to be based 
mainly on existing records as to the Indian rights of all applicants 
who were parties to rejected cases where the degree of Indian blood 

60282-13 7 Digitized by ^OOglc 



98 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

alleged was one-fourth or more. In support of the claims of persons 
of this class it is urged that their right to enrollment was denied 
upon technical or jurisdictional grounds; for example, that appli- 
cation for their enrollment was not received in due time or that they 
were denied enrollment merely because their names couhl not l>e 
identified upon the defective rolls which were prepared in past years 
by tribal authorities. In connection with this class it mav be of 
assistance to note that the records of the Commissioner to tThe Five 
Civilized Tribes show that the number of rejected cases in the Choc- 
taw and Chickasaw Nations was 8,810, and that the number of such 
cases in which the heads of families claim to have one-fourth or 
more Indian blood was less than 6 per cent, while the number of 
cases where such heads of families claim to have one-half Indian 
blood or more was less than 4 per cent. The number of such cases 
in the other tribes was much less than in the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Nations. 

Presumably because of the complaints received, my pi'edecessor 
sent Joseph W. Howell, an assistant attorney in this department, to 
the field to make an examination to ascertain facts that might be 
of assistance in considering the question of reopening the rolls of 
these tribes. Mr. Howell's report was submitted to Secretary Gar- 
field March 3, 1909, and on the same day he wrote you as follows : 

Since tbe conference had with you regardin^^ the question of a law providinj; 
for the reoi)ening of the rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes for the purpose of 
coiisiderln?: certain classes of cases, Mr. Howell has put in writing the Infonna- 
(ion which he obtained while in Olclahoma. 

This material has just reached me, hence it is utterly impossible to Rive it 
ally close attention before to-morrow. I have, therefore, simply directed the 
Assistant Attorney General to have this material fileil in the proi)er depart- 
mental files. I can neither approve nor disapprove of the findings of fact or 
the conclusions of law that may be expressed by Mr. Howell. 

This report will be available for the information of your committee if desired. 

Under date of July 3, 1909, you renuested the Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs to furnish you a copy oi that report for the purpose 
of having it printed. In reply thereto this department, July 26, said : 

This matter is yet under cc^nsl deration, no conclusion having been reached 
PS to what action should be taken In the premises. I suggest the Inadvlsii- 
bllity of printing the report for general distribution at this time. 

A copy of that report, with exhibits referred to therein, is here- 
with for your information and such use as you may see fit to make 
of it. 

The attitude of the Choctaw Tribe respecting this matter Ls shown 
in the memorial of Octol)er, 1908, supra. Keprcsentatives of the 
other tribes are also opposed to any reopening of the rolls, at least 
to any greater extent than to permit a decision by the Secretary of 
the Interior upon the record as heretofore made up in those cases 
in which the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, or its suc- 
cessor, the commissioner, gave a favorable decision, but no decision 
was made by the Secretary, because the record reached him after 
the time fixed by law for closing the rolls. The tribes assert, and 
no doubt there is ground therefor, that many are now enrolled who 
have no right in law or equity, such enrollment having been pro- 
cured in many instances by means of fraud and perjury. It is 
strenuously insisted, therefore, in behalf of the tribes that if any 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 99 

general legislation be enacted it contain adequate provision to enable 
the tribes to contest the right of those who were illegally enrolled. 

In conclusion, I am constrained to believe, and therefore recom- 
mend, that the rolls be not opened up, but that proper legal authority 
be given to the Secretary of the Interior to place upon the rolls those 
Indians (about 52 in number) whose applications were approved 
by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes and were trans- 
mitted to Washington before the 4th of March, 1907, but did not 
reach the department until after the rolls were closed ; and, further- 
more, that proper authority be given the Secretary of the Interior 
to examine and place upon the rolls the minor orphan children, in- 
competents, and Indians in incarceration whosc'claims were not pre- 
sented in due time for adjudication. I am informed that this class 
numbers about 200. No one seems to have taken the responsibility 
of presenting the claims of this class for consideration. They could 
not look aft^ their own interests. 
Very respectfully, 

(Signed) R. A. Ballinger, 

Secretary, 

Department of the Interior, 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, 

Muskogee^ Olda,^ Nooemher J, 1909, 
Subject ; Proposed bill of Senator Clapp extending tlie provisions 
of act approved Febniary G, 11)01, to Choctaws and Chickasaws. 
The honorable the Secretary of the Interior. 

Sir: ITnder date of June 5, 190o, there was forwarded to this 
office from the depart n^nt a copy of a bill proposed by Senator 
Clapp, entitled : 

A t)iU extending the provisions of an act approved February sixth, nineteen 
btmdred and one, entitied *'An act amending the act of Angust fifteenth, eighteen 
iMindred and ninety-four, entitled 'An act making ai>})ropriatioiis for current and 
ooatiugeot eKpenses of tbe Indian Uetiartuiei^ and iul^QJllug treatlefi and stipula- 
tions with various Indian tribes, for tlie fiscal year ending Juiie thirtieth, 
eighteen hundred and ninety-four, and for other puri>oses,' " to any person 
clulnjing any right In the common i)roi>eity of the Choct«w or Ohlckasaw 
Indians or tribes. 

Also -copy of his letter transmitting the same to the Indian Office, 
and a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior written to 
Senator Clapp; and I was directed to examine same and submit to 
the department such criticism and comment thereon as I might think 
proper. 

Immediately upon the receipt, copies of the bill in question were 
forwarded to Hon. Green McCurtain, principal chief of the Choctaw 
Nation; Hon. Douglas II. Johnston, governor of the Chickasaw 
Nation; and Mr. W. W. Hastings, national attorney of the Cherokee 
Nation, requesting their views concerning the matter, together with 
such suggestions as they might desire to offer. No response has been 
receivea from Gov. Johnston, and Mr. Hasting recently verballv 
informed me that he had no suggestions to offer, inasmuch as the bill 
did not refer to the Cherokee Nation. 

I inclose herewith copy of a letter from Hon. Green McCurtain, 
dated October 27, 1909, acknowledging the i^eceipt of said bill and 



')^ 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



100 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

stating that he had delayed replying thereto until the Choctaw 
Council, which has recently adjourned, could consider same. He also 
stated that the Choctaw Council had nothing to say concerning the 
matter at this time, preferring to stand upon the memorial protesting 
against any action being taken looking to the reopening of the Choc- 
taw and Chickasaw rolls, passed at the last regular session of said 
council, as expressing the views of the Choctaws in regard to the 
matter of reopening the rolls of citizenship of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Nations, which memorial was forwarded by me to the 
department on November 17, 1908, with the statement that the pro- 
test did not require executive action, but simply embodied the opin- 
ion of the Choctaw Tribe generally concerning the reopening of the 
rolls. By Indian Office letter of December 4, 1908 (Land 78706-1908, 
E. B. H.), I was advised that the department, on November 30, 
1908, had approved its recommendation that the protest of the Choc- 
taw Council be retained in the files of the Indian Office to be trans- 
mitted to Congress, if any bills were introduced designed to open the 
rolls. 

The memorial above mentioned in substance attacks the legislation 
passed by Congress re^rding the enrollment of citizens and freed- 
men of the Five Civilized Tribes and particularly those of the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. It also containea a criticism of 
the manner in which the enrollment work was accomplished by the 
Government's agents, charges frauds were perpetrated by the appli- 
cants and their attorneys ; that many of the persons already enrolled 
secured their enrollment through fraud, and that any legislation that 
might be passed providing for the reopening of the rolls would serve 
to render possible the perpetration of further frauds on the Choctaw 
people. The council contended that the applicants whose cases have 
been before the commission, or the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes, and the department have had full opportunity to have them 
adjudicated, and that thev are not entitled to further examination 
of what they contend to be their rights, but that the nation would 
not object to the enrollment of the 40 or 50 Choctaws and Chickasaws 
by blood, who were left off the rolls through their ignorance. 

Section 1 of the proposed bill provides as follows: 

That the provisions of an act approved Febninry sixth, nineteen hundred and 
one (chapter two hundred and seventeen. United States Statutes at Tiarj^e, 
Fifty-sixth Congress), entitled "An act amending the act of August flfteenth, 
eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled *An act malving ai)propriation8 for 
current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department and fulfilling treaties 
and stipulations with various Indian tribes for the fiscal year ending June 
thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and for other purposes,' " be, and 
tlie same Is hereby, extended to any person claiming any right In the common 
property of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Indians or tribes ; and in order to make 
ssiid act applicable to any person claiming any such right In said property, 
said act Is hereby amended to read as follows. 

And sections 2 and 3 are practically identical with chapter 217, 
page 760 of volume 31 of the United States Statutes at Large, with 
the exception that same, instead of being applicable to the Five 
Civilized Tribes and the Quapaw Indians, is made applicable to 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations alone. Section 4 is for the 
purpose of securing evidence; limits the time within which suits 
must be brought to one year after the passage of the act, and pro- 
vides that no surety for costs shall be required from the plaintiff. 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 101 

If this bill should become a law, it would biB far-reaching in its 
effects, in that it would result in the reopening of the enrollment in 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations ^and a read] udicat ion by the 
United States courts of cases already heard and determined — a pro- 
ceeding that was once conducted in determining the rights of persons 
to citizenship in the Five Civilized Tribes with such little success 
and in so unsatisfactory a manner as to bring about the institution 
of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court under the act of Con- 
gress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats. L., 641), which court rejected 
over 3,000 of the applicants who had been admitted by the United 
States courts, and only admitted 150. It not only ccmtemplates the 
review of former decisions, but opens the matter to the extent of 
permitting original applications, and, if it becomes a law, will pro- 
long the enrollment work for an indefinite period. 

Under date of November 15, 1907, I transmitted a report to the 
department showing the names of 52 persons who made application 
for enrollment as citizens and freedmen of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, 
Cherokee, and Creek Nations within the time provided by law, and 
who were entitled to citizenship, but whose enrollments were not 
approved by reason of error of this office, the dei)artment, or delay 
by the telegraph companies, and called the attention of the depart- 
ment to a letter of Commissioner Bixby, my predecessor in office, 
dated June 28, 1907, relative to the same matter, and suggested the 
advisability of requesting congressional action with a view to aflford- 
ing relief to these persons. 

The Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs bv Indian Office 
letter of July 23, 1907 (I. T. D. 59745-1907), in reporting on Com- 
missioner Bixby's letter stated : 

It appears from Commissioner Blxby's letter that the parties mentioned l)y 
him are entitled to enrollment, and that for various reasons their names were 
not placed on the rolls. As it appears to he thoroughly established that they 
are as much entitled as any of the citizens of the tribe to which they l)el<>njj, 
and as there is no existing law by which they can be enrolled, it Is recommended 
that the list be preserved and that the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes be requested to investigate further similar cases, to the end that relief 
may be furnished to all such persons by special act of Congress, authorizing 
the placing of their names on the rolls of citizens of the nations to which they 
belong. 

This recomendation was approved by the Secretary of the Interior 
July 25, 1907. 

It appears from the records of this office that approximately 51,600 
persons who made application for enrollment as citizens or freed- 
men of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, or Creek Nation were 
rejected. Two thousand six hundred and eighty of these applicants 
claimed to be Creeks, 11,920 claimed to be Cherokees, and the balance, 
37,000, claimed rights as Choctaws and Chickasaws. These appli- 
cations were all passed upon by the Commission or the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, and nearly all of them were re- 
viewed by the department, and a large number thereof was also 
passed upon by the United States District Court for the Indian 
Territory and by the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court, created 
by the act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (32 Stats. L., 641). 
"it is claimed by many that their applications were not properly 
considered, and that many who were enrolled as Choctaw and Chicka- 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



102 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

saw freedmen and allotted land of the appraised value of $130 16 
should have been enrolled as Indians by olood and permitted to 
select land of the appraised value of $1,041.28 and share in the 
annuities and payments with other citizens of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Nations; and I understand that many of such pers<»ns 
are represented in the Fleming case now pending before the Supreme 
Court of the United States. 

Under all of the circumstances as above set forth, unless it is shown 
that the applications were improperly considered, of which I have 
DO knowleage, I do not feel warranted in recommending the passage 
of the bill as submitted by Senator Clapp, but suggest, in lieu thereof, 
that it might be proper to enact legislation that would authcwize the 
Secretary of the Interior to enroll the names of the 52 persons desig- 
nated in my report to the department, dated November 15, 19^j 
and such other claimants whose applications for enrollment may be 
found to be in similar status and to adjudicate the claims of and en- 
roll such persons, if he deems proper, whose applications for enroll- 
ment were filed within the time prescribed by law and whose cases 
were not considered, with a provision that the enrollment of the 
Mississippi Choctaws mentioned in said letter be made subject to all 
the conditions contained in said sections 41, 42, and 44 of the act of 
Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats. L., 641). 
Respectfully, 

J. G. Wright, 

Commiff8ioner. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



BEPOBT OP JOSEPH W. HOWELL, OP MAECH 3, 1909, EELATING 
TO THE EM tOLLlIEHT OP CITIZENS AND PBEEDHEN OF THE 
FIVE CIYHIZED TBEBES. 



Depabtment of the Interior, 
Washington, D. C, March J, 1909. 
The honorable Secretary of the Interior. 

Sir: In compliance with yonr request I have prepared and ik>w 
submit a report concerning the subject of the enrollment of the 
citizens and freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes. In so doing 
I have given special attention to the claims of various persons who 
allege that they are entitled to share in the lands and money of said 
tribes. Kecent developments have also made necessary the con- 
sideration of the conditions which have arisen since the closing of the 
enrollment work on March 4, 1907. 

The subject of enrollment, including the claims of these persons, 
has excited renewed interest and attention by reason of numerous 
suits which have been instituted in the courts, as well as by the 
a^tation in Congress and elsewhere concerning the alleged rights of 
said persons. 

In order to present the subject clearly it is my purpose (1) to 
describe the conditions which obtained in the Five Civilized Tribes 
prior to and at the time the Government of the United States entered 
upon the work of preparing rolls of said citizens and freedmen : 

(2) to oiitline briefly the variwis acts of Congress and the agree- 
ments with the several tribes under which the work was prosecuted ; 

(3) to explain in what respects said laws failed to accomplish the* 
purpose for which they were intended, owing to defects in the law?? 
themselves and, in a measure, to the methods of adminstration which 
were adopted: (4) to describe the conditions which arose during the- 
course or the enrollment work and which obtained at its close; and 
(5) to recommend such action as, in my opinion, should be taken in 
view of the whole situation. - 

The statements which follow are based upon information received 
by me in various ways and at different times in the discharge of my 
duties relating to Indian matters, and, in order that my means of 
acquiring information in connection therewith may l)e understood, 
I desire to say that mv knowledge concerning the work of the mak- 
ing of the roils of saicl tribes was obtained, primarily, in the prepa- 
ration of decisions in citizenship cases in the office of the Secretary 
of tlie Interior, and, later, in the preparation of opinions in the 
office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of the 
Interior. I have been employed in said offices since early in May, 
1902, and have since then been in close and continuous contact with 
all questions relating to citizenship in the Five Civilized Tribes. 
During the last year I also made an extensive field investigation of 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



104 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

the subject and in so doing I made careful examination of the citi- 
zenship records, both of the United States and the tribal govern- 
ments, now in the custody of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes, following which I traveled extensively throughout the east- 
ern portion of Oklahoma and interviewed and examined many of the 
claimants referred to above as well as numerous officials of the 
United States, and, wherever possible, many of the prominent mem- 
bers of the tribes in question, taking particular pams to meet men 
who would, presuniably, be widely acquainted with the Indian peo- 
ple, such as superintendents of public institutions, teachers, minis- 
ters of the gospel, Indian interpreters, and Indian policemen. 

Preliminary to taking up the subdivisions enumerated above some 
explanation is necessary as to the character of the work of enroll- 
ment. It is probable that but few people have anything like a [^r- 
fect idea of the importance and magnitude of the work of enrolling 
the citizens and freedmen of said tribes. The importance of this 
work was due, primarily, to the fact that nothing could be done to- 
ward the dissolution of the tribes and the breaking up of the tribal 
system until the completion of the rolls, for there could be no dis- 
tribution of the lands and moneys of said tribes until the persons 
entitled to share therein could be definitely ascertained. The magni- 
tude of the work is evident from the fact that there were more than 
100,000 persons whose rights were to be determined, and that upon 
such determination depended the division of about 20,000,000 acres 
of land and the distrioution of funds which will embrace millions, 
. perhaps billions, of dollars. 

The determination of the identity of the beneficiaries and the dis- 
tribution of this property has been likened unto proceeding incident 
to the administration of a vast estate, including the ascertainment of 
the heirs and the distribution of the property of the deceased. But, 
unlike the administration of an ordinary estate, the identification of 
the Indian beneficiaries made it necessary to examine, not the laws 
of one jurisdiction alone, but, instead, the laws of five separate na- 
tions. More than this, the colossal task necessitated a careful study 
not only of the statutes of those nations, but also their constitutions, 
and in addition therto, and above all, the several treaties which each 
tribe has entered into with the United States, together with the vari- 
ous statutes which our own Government has, independently of any 
action upon the part of the tribal governments, enacted concerning 
the matter. 

From the foregoing it wnll be readily appreciated that in the 
enrollment problem there were presented, in a confusing and com- 
plicated degree, many questions covering the whole field of law — 
international, public, and private — upon which were dependent jx)lit- 
ical as well as property rights, all deserving time, patience, and legal 
discrimination of a high order for their solution. 

T have called attention to these features of the subject to em- 
phasize the opinion that the work was of such a nature as to render 
it absolutely impossible to prescribe an arbitrary time for its com- 

f)letion. Having once undertaken it, it was incumbent upon the 
iovernnient to discliarge the duty in an orderly manner and only 
after full consideration of the matter. Otherwise there could not 
fail to result a train of errors which would necessarily cry out for 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 105 

correction for many years to come. A memorandum of points dis- 
cussed herein is inclosed as Exhibit A. 

This brings me to the first of the divisions of the subject. 

I. Conditions in Indian Territory Prior to the Making of the 

Rolls. 

(1) The titles of the Indian tribes to their lands, — As it is well 
known that there are a considerable number of persons of Indian 
descent, some of whom are full-blood Indians who were bom in the 
Indian Territory and who have always resided in the land of their 
birth and against whom there is no suggestion of loss of citizenship by 
reason of nonresidence, it will be evident that the subject of the title 
of the Indians to their country is one of paramount importance, 
particularly when it is borne in mind that these people claim that the 
tribal lands were conveyed to the Indian people and their descend- 
ants and that indefeasible rights were acquired thereby. 

It will be remembered that the ancient homes of the Five Civilized 
Tribes wwe east of the Mississippi River. The Choctaw and Chicka- 
saw Indians were located, mainly, in the States of Mississippi and 
Alabama, while the Cherokees, Creeks, and Seminoles occupied neigh- 
boring States. 

With the increase of the white population came a demand for the 
removal of the Indians from these States. This demand culminated 
in the treaty of October 18, 1820 (7 Stat., 210, 211), by article 2 
of which the Choctaw Nation agreed to exchange a portion of its 
lands in Mississippi for certain lands west of that river. This 
article reads in part as follows : 

For and In consideration of the foregoing cession, on the part of the Choctaw 
Nation, and In part satisfaction for the same, the commissioners of the United 
Slates, in behalf of said States, do hereby cede to said nation a tract of country 
west of the Mississippi River, situate between the Arlcausas and Red Rivers, 
and bounded as follows: (Here follows the description, which it is unneces- 
sary to repeat.) 

In view of the importance which has generally been given to this 
feature of the matter, I desire to call attention to the fact that there 
are no words in the foregoing article which purport that a convey- 
ance in fee simple to the Choctaw Nation was contemplated. An 
cxchan^ of lands and nothing more was all that was intended, and, 
as the title of the Choctaw Nation in Mississippi and Alabama was 
.simply that species of interest known as the " Indian title " — that is 
to say, a mere right of occupancy — it is fair to assume that they ac- 
quired by the exchange no higher title to or interest in the lands west 
of the Mississippi. But in two respects which were of much im- 
portance to the whites, the treaty of 1820 failed to accomplish what 
was intended; it did not affect the removal of the Indians of the 
Indian Territory and it did not extinguish their title to several mil- 
lions of acres of valuable lands east of the Mississippi River. Later 
came the treaty of September 27-, 1830 (7 Stat., 338), which was de- 
signed to accomplish both of these purposes. Article II of this 
treaty reads in part as follows : 

The rnited States under n j:craut specially to bo made l).v the President of 
the L'nited States shall canKe to be conveyed to tlie Chmtau- Nation a tract of 
conntry west of tlie MisHisnlppi River, in fee 8inii>le t(» tlieni and llieir descend- 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



106 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

ants, to inure to them while they shall exist as a nation and live on it, begin- 
ning near Fort Smith, etc. (Description follows.) 

If the tract described in this article be compared with that con- 
veyed by Article II of the treaty of 1820, it will be found that the 
tract described in the earlier treaty included all the land mentioned 
in the latter treaty, and, in addition, other lands which do not require 
present consideration. It would seem, upon first thought, that the 
conveyance undertaken by Article II of the treaty of 1830 was super- 
fluous and served to accomplish no end whatever^ amounting simply 
to a reconveyance of the same tract. But this view is not sustained 
by further examination of the subject. The treaty of 1830 was a 
new contract. It was based upon new considerations, chief of which^ 
on the part of the Choctaws, were (1) that they should give up their 
homes, which meant the abandonment of the graves of their anees^ 
tors, and thereby make a sacrifice which, it is said, was almost be* 
yond their capacity to endure, and (2) to cede away the balance of 
their eastern lands. It certainly can not be supposed that for these 
considerations they were to receive nothing whatever in return. On 
the contrary, history shows that it was the purpose of the United 
States to make such an inducement as would cause them to be content, 
t J leave their old homes and to remain away from them for all time. 
Accordingly the inducement was offered them of a perman^it hoiEie 
west of the Mississippi, where they should never be molested nor dis- 
turbed by the white man and to which they should have a lastiiig 
title. To carry out thLs understanding the pajrties put words in the 
treaty of 1830, which are not to be found m the former treaty, bj 
providing that the United States would cause " to be conveyed to tm 
Choctaw Nation " the tract of country west of the Mississippi River, 
which conveyance was to be "in fee simple to them and their de- 
scendants" and "to inure to them" while they should exist as a 
natioi^ and live up<)n the land. 

Pursuant to said Article 11^ President Tyler, on March 23, 1842, 
executed a patent, copy of which may be found on pages 31 and 32 
of the Choctaw law book of 1804, conveying, or undertaking to 
convey, the country now comprising the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Xations, to the Choctaw Xation. The following is the granting 
clause of the patent : 

Now know ye. That tlie Vuited States of America. In consideration of the 
premises, and in execution of tiie agreement and stipulation in the aforesaid 
ti-eaty, have given and granted, and by these present do give, and grant, unto 
tlie said Choctaw Xation, the aforesaid " tract of country west of tlie Missis 
sippi ; " to have and to hold the same, with all the rights, privileges, iaunu- 
uities, and appurtenances of wtiatsoever nature thereunto belomglng, as in- 
tended "to be conveyed" by the aforesaid article, ** hi fee simple to them an4 
their deseendantH. to inure to them, while they shall exist as a nation and lire 
ott it,"' liable to no transfer or alienation, except to the United States, or witli 
their consent. 

(Italics supplied.) 

The foregoing treaty provisions form the basLs of the claims of 
those persons who allege Indian blood anddescent. 

The applicants who allege Choctaw descent claim that by Article 
II, of the treaty of September 27, 1830 (7 Stat., 333), the United 
States agreed to convey the lands now in controversy, in fee simple, 
to the Choctaw Nation, in trust, for the exclusive use and benefit 
of a designated class of persons, composed (a) of all tho.se [>ersons 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 107 

comprising the Choctaw community of Indians on the day the treaty 
»vas ratified, and (b) the descendants of such persons. They also 
claim that in 1842 the President of the United States specially con- 
veyed, by patent, said lands, in fee simple, to the Choctaw Nation, 
to be held by it, in trust, for the exclusive use and benefit of said 
designated class of persons. 

The applicants who allege Chickasaw descent claim that by Ar- 
ticle I of the treaty entered into between the Choctaws and Chick- 
asaws on January 27, 1837, and ratified March 24, 1837, by tlie 
Senate of the United States (11 Stat., 573), those persons compris- 
ing the Chickasaw community of Indians on the day said treaty 
was ratified, and the descendants of such persons, acquired by pur- 
chase an equal, undivided, individual interest in the trust property 
a|p*eed to be conveyed to the Choctaws by Article II, of the treaty 
of 1830, on the same terms that the Choctaws held it, and that by 
this treaty the Chickasaws became a part of the designated class 
of Choctaws for whose exclusive use and benefit the grant was to 
be made. 

The applicants as a whole, therefore, claim that every person 
who was a member of the Choctaw community of Indians February 
:i4, 1831 — ^that is to say, when the treaty of September 27, 1830, was 
ratified by the Senate' of the United States — or who is a descendant 
of any such Choctaw member, or who was a member of the Chick- 
M«w community of Indians on the 24th day of March, 1837, or 
who is a descendant of anv such Chickasaw member, became poe- 
sesaed, February 24, 183l/if a Choctaw, or March 24, 1837, if a 
Ckiekasaw, or at hiiij or her birth if a descendant of either of such 
menAwra, with an indefeasible title to an undivided individual inter- 
est in the property resulting from said treaties and prant. 

Thfe eoAtention has not thus far been sustained by the courts. It 
has been hdd^ ii^ead, that the question Is a political one, not open 
to judicial determination, and that it lies with Congress to deal with 
the subject. AMiether this be true or not, it will doubtless prove that 
the sitnation can be relieved more speedily through legislative than 
judicial aclicMi. 

The views of the Indian claimants, as set forth aba\^e, correspond 
^nbstantially with the opinion expressed by tlie Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes in a report rendered' prior to the first of the 
moUment acts. To impress upon Congress the need of interven- 
tion hy the United States, the commission took the position that the 
lands comprising the Choctaw-Chickasaw country were conveyed in 
tniKt to tlie Choctaw Nation for the benefit of the individual mem- 
bers of the tribe. It was compelled, however, to conclude that the 
tmstee, via, the Choctaw Nation, had wholly failed to perform its 
«hity with reference to the trust, and that it was the duty of the 
*»ovemment of the United States to intervene to the end that the 
trust might be fully executed. 

There was another committee appointed to report on affairs in the 
Indian Territory, which was composed of several mentbers of the 
Senate of the United States. This committee rendered a report 
Miy 7. 1894, in respect to the sitiuition in the Indian Territory, 
IMirticuIarly as to the legal aspects thereof, which was sulwtantially 
of the same nature as was that mmle bv the Commission to the Five 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



108 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Civilized Tribes. See Senate Report No. 377, Fifty-third Congress, 
second session. 

The reports of these committees are referred to and quoted ex- 
tensively in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the case of Stephens et al. v, Cherokee Nation, rendered May 15, 
1899 (174 U. S., 445J. 

The importance or the title or interest in the Choctaw and Chick- 
asaw lands asserted by the claimants is due in part to the fact that 
several suits, which have been instituted in the Indian Territory, 
rest upon the foundation that the parties thereto are descendants of 
persons who were ^antees under the treaty of 1830. Some idea of 
the strength of their cases can be obtained by examination of this 
feature of the matter. From decisions rendered in the lower courts, 
it now appears that a judicial interpretation of the treaty rights of 
the claimants may never be made, but that the courts will dispose of 
the subject upon jurisdictional grounds alone. Be this as it may, it 
seems to me that, independently of possible action by the courts, this 
department should take into consideration the question whether, as 
a matter of law and equity, the claimants have rights which ought 
to be respected and, if so, to make appropriate recommendation to 
Congress for remedial legislation. 

The historv' of the Cherokees, Creeks, and Seminoles corresponds 
in a number of material respects to that of the Choctaws and Uhick- 
asaws, and they hold, or did hold, their lands in the Indian Terri- 
tory under substantially the same guarantees of title. 

(2) Conditions incident to removal to the Indian Territory, — The 
removal of the Indian tribes from their homes east of the Mississippi 
to the Indian Territory was a work of much larger proportions than 
is ordinarily appreciated .at this time. In 1830 they were powerful 
tribes. They had established governments in their ancient seats of 
power. There they had lived and made their homes for many years. 
History has shown that the ties which bind men to places where they 
have made their homes were peculiarly strong with these people. 
The treaty provisions looking to their removal were not xmderstood 
by the great mass. of people, and were acquiesced in only by the 
leaders of the tribes. In that dfij the means of travel were few and 
poorly adapted to the transportation of large number of people, par- 
ticularly where it meant the breaking up of a whole nation com- 
posed of all classes of persons, children of tender years, and men and 
women of advanced age, as well as the warriors and strong men of 
the tribes. Part of the work of transportation was accomplished 
by steamboat, but many of the people were compelled to make the 
greater part of the journey on foot. Rivers were to be crossed, 
swamps were to be avoided, forests were to be traversed, and the 
hardships of winter encountered. Conditions were such that the 
United States was unable to remove the people from east of 'the 
Mississippi within the time contemplated by said treaty of 1830. 
Moreover, circumstances surrounding the Choctaw people were such 
as to render removal within the time stated a physical impossibility. 
The work of transporting the Choctaws, however, was carried on by 
the United States from year to year for many years after said treaty. 
These people were transported west at the expense of the Govern- 
ment even after the year 1850. Others removed at their own ex- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



' FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 109 

I>ense subsequent to that date, but the cost of their removal was 
ultimately paid by the United States. The attitude of the Choctaw 
Nation, as set forth in this law, was for many years, to welcome all 
Choctaws who had been members of the tribe in Mississippi together 
with their descendants. Illustrative of this attitude is tlie Choctaw 
act of October 19, 1836, which provided that no person belonging to 
any tribe of Indians or people, not a descendant of Choctaws, should 
be permitted to settle in the nation, or purchase any improvement of 
any citizen or citizens of the nation, unless by permission from the 
general council. By this act the Choctaw Nation impliedly con- 
sented to the removal of Choctaw Indians to the Choctaw Nation 
in the Indian Territory, and to their settlement therein with the right 
to improve the land and to make homes for themselves and their 
children. / 

The Choctaw act of October 14, 1847, provided that all the new 
and late emigrant Choctaws to the land should have equal rights 
with the late settlers in participation in the schools of the nation. 
Here again, after a lapse of 11 years, the Choctaw Nation evidenced 
the same spirit toward the absentee Choctaws. 

The right of Indians of blood to reaffiliate with the tribe is fur- 
ther evidenced by Article XVII of the treaty of 1866 (14 Stat., 769), 
wherein provision was made for newspaper publication of notice in 
six States of the Nation to the end — 

tiiat such Choctaws and Chlckasaws as yet remained ontside of the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Nations, may be informed and ha-ve opportunity to exercise the 
rights hereby given to resident Choctaws and Chiekasaws. 

By act of December 24, 1889, the Choctaw Nation requested the 
United States Government to make provision for the removal of 
certain Choctaws to the Indian Territory. 

This resolution reads as follows : 

Whereas there are lar^e numbers of (^hoctaws yet in the Statps of Mississippi 
and Ix>nisiana who are entitled to ali the rights and privileges of citizenship 
In the Choctaw Nation; and 

Whereas they are denied all rights of citizenship in said States: and 

Whereas they are too jwor to immigrate themselves into tlie Choctaw Nation : 

Therefore, 

Be it resolved hy the general council of the Choctaw Nation ansembtrd. That 
the United States Government is hereby requested to make provisions for the 
emigration of said Choctaws from said States to the Choctaw Nation. 

These different acts indicate that the Choctaw Nation recognized 
nniformly and over a long period of time the right of descendants 
of the Choctaw people to remove to the Choctaw Nation west and to 
reaffiliate with the tribe, and, upon so doing, to enjoy all the privileges 
of other members of the nation. Their right to do so was recognized, 
impliedly at lea^, in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898 (30 Stat., 495), 
for it provided in section 21 thereof as follows : 

No person shali be enrolled who has not heretofore removed to and in good 
fnith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship: Provided, however^ 
That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to militate against 
any rights or pririleges which the Mississippi Choctaws may have under the 
laws of or the treaties with the United States. 

It is unnecessary, however, to discuss this aspect of the matter 
further, inasmuch as it was shown in the opinion of the Assistant 
Attorney General of this department, February 19, 1903, in the case 
of James S. Long et al., upon an exhaustive review of the history 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



110 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

of the Choctaw people and their laws, that the right was acknowl- 
edged for many years, and until very recent times, of persons of 
Choctaw blood to resume their citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, 
simply by removing thereto and subjecting themselves to its laws. 

The people who thus removed to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country 
west of the Mississippi entered upon the land and made homes 
thereon, acquired farms, and otherwise improved the country. To 
some of them, as the records of the department show, permits were 
issued by the tribal authorities to employ noncitizens. Thus, the 
p«ersons receiving such permits were, in one way, recognized as 
citizens. 

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS WHICH FOLLOWED REMOVAL TO THE 
INDIAN TERRITORY AND SUBSEQUENT EFFECT OF SAME UPON CTTIZEN- 
SIIIP MATTERS. 

The removal of a whole nation from one portion of the country 
to a remote region diflBcult of access during' the period of 20 j^ears 
which preceded the Civil War, and the rees-tablishment of tliat nation 
after such removal, necessarily had a demoralizing effect upon the 
institutions and governments of the people affected. This result 
was accentuated by the fact that the work of removal was ai^com- 
plished by the Government of the United States, not at any one 
time, not within the period agreed upon in the treaty, but» throughout 
a long period of years and in scattering installments. All this is 
true, not of one nation either, but in all material respects of five. 
Necessarily a long period of peace and quiet, after such an experience 
in the history of any nation, would be required to restore conditions 
of law and order. Furthermore, it is patent that during siich a 
period of turmoil might would make right in the distribution of 
political and property favors, and that the right of the weak and 
helpless would be ignored. 

Various rolls were made from time to time by the tribal authori- 
ties, but such rolls were defective in a number of respects, as will be 
pointed out hereinafter in connection with the act of May 5il, 1900, 
which will be discussed later. With reference to that act I will point 
out the conditions which I found to exist upon personal examination 
of the tribal rolls, as well as those set forth by the Commission to 
the Five Civilized Tribes in its several reports. The conditions set 
forth above will explain the lack of enrollment in a measure, but in 
addition thereto, it is to be noted that but meager provision was made 
for the formal recognition of those Indians who removed west after 
the migration of the main body of the tribes. Some provision was 
made through the appointment of citizenship commissions from time 
to time for the enrollment of persons who arrived in the Indian 
Territory during later times. A history of the laws and customs of 
these people also shows that for many years after the treaty the 
greatest irregularity existed in all matters pertaining to the enroll- 
ment of the citizens. The citizenship commissions w^ere not fre- 
quently appointed and were not readily accessible to the people, 
many of whom, particularly in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, 
resided in out-of-the-way places in mountainous regions far from the 
points where the commissions held their sessions. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. Ill 

The census rolls were prepared by census lakers who performed 
their duties probably with as much but with no «rreater care than 
that whicli usually characterized the loose methods followed by the 
tribal officials. Owing to the fact that the adopted whites and the 
mixed-blood Indians appropriated to their own uses the more valu- 
able lands, many of the full bloods were compelled to live in the hill 
country and^ of coui^se, became as a result more or less inaccessible 
to census takers. The custom of the full-blood Indians of changing 
their names from time to time undoubtedly made it very difficult for 
the commission, and perhaps in some cases impossible, to identify 
them as -duly enrolled citizens. This condition respecting the enroll- 
ment of citizens is not to be woiKlered at in view of the chaotic 
condition of affairs in said tribes and the irregiilar methods pursued 
by them in business and legal matters. 

The whole fault, however, was not due to carelessness, ignorance, 
or iDComp)etence ; instead, it was greatly augmented by the extreme 
corruption into which the tribal governments fell following the influx 
of the whites, ainl contamination growling o*it of association with 
the more unscmpulous classes of white persons. The corrupt condi- 
tion 0f the tribes is set forth with considerable detail in various 
reports of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. 

November 20, 1894, said commission reported, in effect, that the 
tribal governments had proved a failure; that they were powerless to 
protect life and property, and that corruption of the grossest kind, 
openlv and imblushingly practiced, had found its way into every 
branch of the service of the tribal governments; that all branches of 
the governments were reeking with it, and that so common had it 
become that no attempt at concealment was thought necessary. The 
commission then reported further that the governments had fallen 
into the hands of a few able and energetic Indian citizens, nearly 
all mixed bloods and adopted whites, who had so administered 
affairs and enacted such laws that they were enabled to appropriate to 
their own exclusive use almost the entire property of the Territory of 
any kind that could be rendered profitable and available. The com- 
mission gave one instance where an unmarried white citizen of one 
tribe had appropriated to his exclusive use 50,000 acres of valuable 
land. It also reported that in another tribe, whose territory con- 
sisted of 3,040,000 acres of land, laws had been enacted during the 
last few years under which 61 citizens had appropriated to thfem- 
pelves and were then holding for pasturage and cultivation 1,237,000 
acres, which constituted the arable and greater part of the valuable 
^zing lands belonging to that tribe. Report was also made that 
in another tribe a favored few were enjoying the products of the coal 
mines and forests. It further appears from said report that corrup- 
tion of the tribal governments extended to the making of the various 
payments which were disbursed under treaty stipulations. It was 
reported by the commission that the payment of money to the Indians 
of those tribes within the last few years had been attended by many 
and well-authenticated complaints of fraud, and that persons malc- 
ing such payments, with others associated in the business, had, by 
unfair means and improper uses of the advantages afforded them, 
acquired large fortunes, and that in many instances private persons 
entitled to payments had received but little benefit therefrom. As to 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



112 FIVE CmUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

freedmen, it appeared that they were accorded but little, if any, pro- 
tection by the law. 

With reference to the improper practices followed in connection 
with the tribal payments, it is considered proper to suggest that the 
improper withholding, as well a.s the unjustifiable according, of the 
right to receive the same, was probably the cause, more than any 
other one thing, of the imperfect condition of the rolls. Such im- 
proper practices undoubtedly resulted, in some cases, in the placing 
of names upon the tribal rolls without authority of law; but other 
cases have been presented to the department where it was claimed 
that the right to enrollment, or to receive payments, was denied be- 
cause the citizen refused to assign, for a small percentage of its 
value, his right to receive the payment to the person maidng the 
same. 

Further report was rendered by the commission November 18, 
1895. It then reported its conviction that a large majority of the 
citizens were without voice or participation in the policy or laws by 
which they were governed. The commission also repeated the state- 
ments contained m its prior report, concerning the appropriation 
of everything of value by the few, as well as its remarks concerning 
the corruption of the trioal governments. 

In said report of November 18, 1895, the commission also set forth 
tlie condition, of the tribal rolls, particularly of the Cherokee Nation, 
stating, however, that much of what had been said with respect to the 
Cherokees was also applicable to the condition of affairs in the other 
nations. It pointed out that the tribal roll had become a political 
football, and that names had been stricken from it, added to it, and 
restored to it, without notice, or rehearing, or power of review, to 
further political or personal ends, with entire disregard of rights 
affected thereby; also that many who had long enjoyed all the ac- 
knowledged rights of citizenship had, without warning, found them- 
selves decitizenized and deprived of both political and property 
rights pertaining to citizenship; that this practice of striking names 
from the rolls had been used in criminal cases to oust courts of 
jurisdiction depending on that fact, and that the same names had 
afterwards been restored to the rolls when that fact would oust 
another court of jurisdiction for the same offense. Glaring instances 
of the entire miscarriage of justice from this cause had come to the 
knowledge of the commission, and cases of the greatest hardship, 
affecting private rights, were found to be of frequent occurrence. 
Special reference was made by the commission to the so-called " in- 
truders' roll," which was a list of persons whose claims to citizenship 
were denied by the nation, and who, by agreement in the purchase of 
the Cherokee strip, were to be removed from the Territory. The 
commission reported that this roll was then being prepared by the 
Cherokee authorities in a manner most surprising and shocking to 
every sense of justice and in disregard of the plainest principles of 
law ; that the chief assumed to have authority to designate the per- 
sons to be put upon the intruders' roll, and that names were by his 
order, without hearing or notice, transferred from the citizens^ roll 
to that of the intruders' roll. It was made clear to the minds of the 
commissioners that the grossest injustice and fraud characterized 
said roll; that persons whose names had been on the citizens' roll by 
the judicial decree of the tribunal established by law for that pur- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 118 

pose for many years, some of them for 20 or more, persons who had 
enjoyed all the rights of citizenship unquestioned by anyone until 
distribution per capita of the strip money, had been by the mere 
designation of the chief stricken from the citizens' roll and put upon 
that of the intruders' roll. Because of this condition of anairs the 
commission felt it a duty to call attention to the facts and to invoke 
the direct intervention of the Government to prevent the consumma- 
tion of a great wrong. 

Internal causes alone did not operate to bring about the situation 
described by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. It is a 
matter of common laiowledge that both before the Civil War and for 
many years afterwards, the Indian Territor}^ was a place of refuge 
for fugitives from justice. After committing their depredations 
upon the settlers of the neighboring States, they would retreat for 
safety to the forests and mountain regions of the Five Tribes. There 
they would continue their depredations with demoralizing effect, 
thereby maintaining a reign of terror and adding to the unrest and 
disorganized condition of the Indians. 

In the midst of this unhappy situation came the Civil War. The 
tribes divided, some joining the Northern Army, others casting their 
lot with the Confederacy. Even the individual tribes themselves 
separated into factions, and many members of each temporarily 
abandoned their homes and joined the forces of the North or South, 
as their respective opinions dictated. When the war closed an effort 
was made to bring these warring f actimis together and to reestablish 
their governments. New treaties were entered into by the United 
States with each of the tribes and once more an attempt was made 
to build up the national organizations. With the establishment 
of the nations, the men who had in war opposed each other allied 
themselves in opposing political factions. First one party and then 
the other would acquire possession of the tribal governments, after 
elections of exceeding bitterness. It is safe to say that the political 
struggles which ensued were ofttimes more fierce and bitter than the 
political struggles which have been characteristic of the South Ameri- 
can Kepublics. 

The claim was made to me in the course of my field investigation, 
that men were stricken from the tribal rolls by the party in power to 
prevent the opposing party from carrying elections. This claim is 
supported by the reports of the Dawes Commission, mentioned above. 
It is indisputably .established by certain laws which will be found in 
the Indian law books restoring individuals to citizenship whose names 
had theretofore been stricken from the tribal rolls for political and 
partisan purposes only. 

After making a careful study of the whole situation during the 
years 1894 and 1895, the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
expressed its final conclusion with respect to citizenship : that if the 
matter was left without control or supervision, to the absolute deter- 
mination of the tribal authorities, with power to decitizenize at will, 
the grossest injustice would be perpetrated in the Indian Territorv. 
At the time of its report, the commissioner recommended to Con- 
gress that action be taken for the purpose of bringing the corrupt 
practices of the tribal governments to a close and of securing to each 
and every citizen his rights under the laws and treaties of the nation 
in which he was entitled to membership. 

B92S2 — 13 8 Digitized by V^OOglC 



114 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

II. Acts of Congress and Agreements With the Various Tribes 
Under Which the Work of Enrollment Was Prosecuted. 

It has been pointed out above that the intervention of the United 
States in respect to the making of the tribal rolls was necessary be- 
cause the tribal authorities had themselves failed to make correct 
rolls, owing to their corrupt practices, and that many persons who 
were entitled to citizenship were unjustly deprived of their rights. 
From all that has been said it is apparent that Congress intended to, 
and actually did, repudiate the trioal rolls in a large measure. 

In undertaking the work of making the rolls Congress legislated 
as ^ardian upon the theory that the Indians were wards of the 
United States and that, as such, they were entitled to its assistance 
and protection in order to secure and preserve their property rights. 
Thus the Government assumed directly an attitude of responsibility 
in the matter. Out of this relationship of guardian and ward it was 
the duty of the United States to take the initiative in securing the 
enrollment of each of its wards. The burden of taking affirmative 
action lay upon the United States and not upon the respective 
Indians. This is true from a legal standpoint, but this principle w^as 
not introduced into practice. In practically all of the acts Con- 
gress threw upon the Indian citizens the responsibility of making ap- 
plication for their enrollments; in other words, the duty was im- 
posed upon the ward of making application to his guardian to secure 
rights which the guardian was in duty bound to secure for those who 
were entitled to look to him for assistance and protection. 

Notwithstanding the reasons which induced the Government to 
undertake the work, its good intentions seem to have been forgotten 
or overlooked. An inspection of the enrollment laws made by Con- 
gress and the rulings of the department will show that time and 
again it was made necessary for the applicant to apply for his enroll- 
ment. Not only this, but he was also compelled to do so within 
arbitrary time limits. The injustice of this requirement is plainly 
seen by contrast. The duty was placed upon the Indian of taking 
the first steps — that is to say, to make application for enrollment, 
looking to the securing of his allotment and his share of the tribal 
funds. Although thus left to shift for himself at the most critical 
stage in the transaction, he was not allowed to remain a free agent 
after securing his enrollment. The laws regulating the allotment of 
the tribal lands imposed restrictions thereon, under which the same 
Indian could not dispose of his land or even lease the same, with 
certain minor exceptions, without the consent of his guardian. It is 
very plain that if the provisions of law relating to guardianship 
were properly applied to the Indian in respect to the sale and leasing 
of his land it was improper and unjust to withhold assistance from 
him in securing his enrollment. 

The laws governing the making of the rolls were of three classes, 
the first of which were of a general and preliminarv character, em- 
bracing within their scope all the Five Civilized Tribes; the next 
class of laws was of a special nature, and contain the principal acts 
under which the work of enrollment was consummated; this class 
consists of measures embodied in agreements with the respective 
tribes. The third class of laws was of a supplemental nature, and 
relates mainly to the enrollment of new-born citizens for whom no 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 115 

frovisioii was made in the various agreements. For convenience 
will set forth the several acts according to the classification 
mentioned : 

A. Acts of a general and preliminary character : 

(1) June 10, 1896 (29 Stat, 321). 

(2) June 7, 1897 (30 Stat., aS). 

(3) June 28, 1898 (30 Stat, 495) (commonly known as the Curtis Act, 
including the Atoka agreement). 

(4) May 31, 1900 (31 Stat, 221). 

B. Acts of a special character: 

(1) Agreement with the Seminoles, December 16, 1897, approved July 1, 
1898 (30 Stat, 567). 

(2) Agreement with the Seminoles, October 7, 1899, approved June 2, 
3900 (31 Stat, 250). 

(3) Agreement with Creeks, approved March 1, 1901 (31 Stat., 861), and 
ratified by Creeks, May 25, 1901. 

(4) Agreement with Creeks, approved June 30, 1902 (32 Stat, 500), 
and ratified by Creeks, July 26, 1902. 

(5) Agreement with the Choctaws and Chlckasaws, approved July J, 
1902 (32 Stat, 641), and ratified by said tribes, September 25, 1902. 

(6) Agreement with Cherokees, approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 716), 
and ratified by Cherokees,. August 7, 1902. 

C. Acts of a supplemental character: 

(1) March 3, 1905 (33 Stat, 1048). 

(2) April 26, 1906 (34 Stat, 137). 

(3) June 21, 1906 (34 Stat, 325). 

The various enrollment acts will now be considered somewhat in 
detail and an effort will be made in so doing to bear in mind (1) 
whether said laws were adequate to carry out the purposes for whicn 
they were enacted; (2) whether said laws were so administered as 
to render possible the enrollment of all persons entitled to citizenship 
in the Five Civilized Tribes. 

TIL Why the Acts of Congress Failed to Accx)mpli8h the Pur- 
poses roR Which They Were Intended. 

1. Act of June 10, 1806 {29 StaL, 21).— This act illustrates that 
Congress did not appreciate the magnitude of the work to be accom- 
plished in making rolls of citizenship of the Five Civilized Tribes. 
The law was drawn upon the theory that complete rolls could be made 
within six months. It contemplated (1) tha| the Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes and the tribal authorities should enroll all per- 
i^ons entitled to citizenship who had not theretofore been enrolled, and 
(2) that the commission should make up a complete roll of said tribes 
by adding to the names already on the tribal rolls the names of all 
other persons granted enrollment by the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes and by the tribal authorities under said act. The 
important points are : 

(a) It threw uoon the Indian, although a ward of the Government, 
• the burden of making the application. 

(6) The act contamed four arbitrary time limits. Applications 
to the commission were to be made in 90 days. The commission was 
required to decide such applications within 90 days from receipt of 
same. Applications to the tribal authorities were also to be made 
within three months from and after the passage of the act. Such 
applications were to be determined within 30 days from the^date 
thereof. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



116 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

(c) The act provided for an appeal to the United States courts, 
ana declared that decisions of the latter should be final, but made no 
provision whatever as to whether the decisions of the commission and 
of the tribal authorities, in the absence of appeal, were to be final. 
This uncertainty led to great confusion several years later in an 
attempt to apply the opinion of the Attorney General of February 
19, 1907, relative to the cases of William C. Thompson and others to 
the citizenship cases that were pending during the few weeks prior 
to March 4, 1907, as well as to the cases of those persons whose names 
were unlawfully stricken from the tribal rolls. 

(d) The act was ambi^ous in that it did not make clear whether 
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and the tribal authori- 
ties were vested with authority to adjudicate the cases of persons 
whose names were already upon the tribal rolls. The commission, 
iA the Wiley Adams case, adopted the view that its jurisdiction in 
the determination of the citizenship cases was limited solely to the 
cases of persons who had not theretofore been formally recognized 
as citizens of the respective nations. The Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs concurred in the decision of \he commission. In this con- 
nection it is important to note that the attorneys for the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Nations, in arguing another matter, referred approvingly 
to the decision of the department of May 21, 1903, in the Wiley 
Adams case, and set forth in their brief at length the views adopted 
in said case. 

(e) In said opinion of February 19, 1907, of the Attorney General 
certain expressions which were erroneously construed by the De- 

Eartment of the Interior to mean that the rejection of an applicant 
y the commission in 1896 was final for all time, and that there could 
be no reexamination upon the merits of any such case, resulted in a 
mistaken and erroneous application of the opinion, and many persons 
were stricken from the tribal rolls after the approval of the same 
months and even years before by the Secretary oi the Interior, while 
many other cases which were then pending were adjudicated and 
denied upon the same mistaken theory. For this reason the decisions 
of the department subsequent to February 19, 1906, with respect to 
such cases should certainly be reviewed. 

(/) The brief period allowed for the receipt and determination 
of applications under the act of June 10, 1896, made it impossible 
to avoid mistakes. Many errors were the result of these provisions. 
There were presented to the commission, in accordance with said act 
of June 10, 1896, some 7,500 claims, representing nearly, if not quite, 
75jOOO individuals, eat?h claim requiring separate adjudication on the 
evidence upon which it rests. Computation shows that if the com- 
mission devoted all of its working hours to the receipt and consid- 
eration of such applications, it would have been able to give approxi- 
mately but one minute to each person during the time it was supposed* 
to consider and give due weight to the rolls, customs, and usages of 
the various tribes and to carefully consider the laws and treaties of 
the United States relating thereto. 

Recent investigation has shown that practically all the rolls which 
the commission was supposed to consider under the act of June 10, 
189^, were not in its possession during any time that year nor for 
several years thereafter. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 117 

{g) In the hurry and confusion applicants who were entitled to 
enrollment as Choctaws applied as Chickasaws, and vice versa. 
Applicants were rejected where they claimed two sources of right, 
one of which constituted a good claim and the other did not. 

{h) Upon personal investigation I find that the commission did 
not render formal decisions in these cases. In examining a specific 
case I found that a mere notation in pencil was made upon the jacket 
of the case indicating that the party was to be enrolled. This nota- 
tion was undated and unsign^a. The action taken in this case was 
typical of that taken in the majority, and probably all, of those 
cases. 

{i) Upon the whole, the adjudications of the commission under 
tlie act of June 10, 1896, were practically of no value in determining 
the rights of the applicants, at least m a great majority of cases, 
and must often have resulted in injustice both to the nations in 
interest and to individual claimants.' 

(2) Act of June 7, 1897 {30 Stat., 83).—T\i\s act was also of a 
general nature. Properly speaking it was supplemental to the act 
of June 10, 1890. I understand that many applications were made 
under this act, but practically nothing whatever was accomplished. 
Xad^ further, that no roll was made up either under this act or the 
act of June 10, 1896, which should in any way be regarded as a roll 
of citizens and freedmen of said tribes. By reason of what I have 
said concerning this and the preceding act, it was really necessary 
tt> make a new start in the enrollment work. Probably this idea was 
in the minds of the legislators when, by the enrollment act of June 
28, 1898, Congress provided that the Commission to the Five Civil- 
ized Tribes should make " a correct roll." 

(3) Act of June 28, 1898 {30 Stat:, 495).— This was one of the 
most important of the enrollment acts and was subsequently made a 
part, by reference, of all or nearly all the agreements. It contained 
a number of provisions which applied to all the tribes, but it con-' 
listed in the main, so far as enrollment was concerned, of a series of 
l>aragraphs dealing successively with the respective classes of citizens 
and freedmen. 

The following points are of importance with respect to this act : 
{a) The act was not clear as to whether the Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes, under the supervision of the Secretary of the 
Interior, was to consider the applications of all persons who might 
apply by blood or only tlie applications of those who were upon tlie 
tribal rolls. The Indian Office took the. more liberal view, but the 
department, i. e., the Secretary's office, gave the statute a restricted 
meaning whereby the making of the final rolls became a mere process 
of elimination. Thus mistakes could be rectified where ])ei^ons had 
been improperly enrolled in times past, but nothing could he done to 

five relief where the right to enrollment had been improperly with- 
eld. Viewing the matter in the light of the reports of the Dawes 
Commiasion, referred to above, this construction was unfortunate. 
Moreover, in my opinion, it was not the necessary meaning to be 
given to the words of the act. 

(b) This law limited the enrollment of the descendants of en- 
rolled citizens, where such descendants were not themselves enrolled 
on the tribal rolls, to descendants born subsequent to the making of 
such rolls. This was altogether too fine a distinction, for it goes 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



118 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

almost without argument that the children of a family are of the 
same citizenship. There was one c^se which I recall, although I can 
not remember the name, where the son of a man whose name was on 
the 1880 Cherokee roll was denied enrollment. Yet by blood and 
residence the son was as fully entitled to enrollment as the father. 

(g) In an opinion of December 14, 1904, the Assistant Attorney 
General for this department held that Marj' W. Greenleaf and her 
children should not oe enrolled is Cherokees by blood. THe parents 
of Mrs. Greenleaf separated and she was carried by her father when 
but 3 years of age to California where she resided for many years, 
during which time she was kept in ignorance of her Cherokee blood 
and Indian rights. Several tribal rolls were made during her 
absence but naturally her name was omitted therefrom. Her mother, 
who remained in the Cherokee Nation, was duly enrolled upon the 
1880 Cherokee roll which was affirmed by said act of June 28, 1898. 
Upon these facts the Assistant Attorney General held (1) that Sirs. 
Greenleaf's natural right, by reason oi her birth, was perfect, and 
that she had not by voluntary act forfeited her citizenship during 
her absence, but that the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
was, because of the act of May 31, 1900, without jurisdiction to re- 
ceive or consider her application, and (2) that her minor children 
should also be denied enrollment. It was claimed in this case that 
inasmuch as the grandmother of these children was enrolled upon 
the 1880 roll, thev were entitled, under the Curtis Act, to be enrolled 
as " descendants of one whose name was borne upon that roll, but 
the Assistant Attorney General refused to consent to this contention 
holding it was not intended to include all descendants "but only 
such descendants as could show continuity of the line of allegiance 
as well as a continuity of descent." 

We kept Mrs. Greenleaf's case on file in the Secretary's office, in 
^hat we termed the "equitable box," for a long time thinking that 
Congress might possibly give remedial legislation of some character, 
but none was ever enacted. 

(d) The necessary meaning of the act was that the commission 
should take the initiative in the making of the rolls and not throw 
upon the Indian the duty of making the first move. The commission 
was directed to make a " correct roll," and it was authorized " to take 
a census of each of said tribes, or to adopt any other means by them 
deemed necessary to enable them to make such rolls." Notwith- 
standing the fact that the Indians were wards of the Government, 
and manv of them orphans and minors, the department, in 1899, 
adopted formal regulations requiring the Indians to make application 
in person to the enrolling officers. This rule worked great hardship, 
as I learned from personal investigation. This practice was con- 
denmed by the Assistant Attorney General in an opinion rendered 
August 5, 1908, but not until after it had been followed for about 
five years. I understand, however, that the practice was never aban- 
doned. In fact, tliis mode of procedure became, by implication at 
least, a part of the agreements. 

(e) Altliough the Indians by blood were required to show tribal 
enrollment, no such burden Avas imposed upon the freedmen. A 
negro miglit be enrolled as a Cherokee citizen and receive a full 
allotment, if he could show continuous residence in the Cherokee 
Nation since the outbreak of the Civil War, but an Indian by blood 

Digitized by V^OOQlc 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 119 

could not secure enrollment by the Dawes Conunission upon the same 
proof, unless his name appeared upon some roll of the tribe. There 
were other respects, however, which rendered the way of the freed- 
men sufficiently hard, but I will refer to this again in connection 
with the act of April 26, 1906. 

(/) It was provided by the act that no person should be enrolled 
who had not theretofore, i. e., prior to June 28, 1898, removed to 
and settled in the nation in which he claimed citizenship. The 
commission construed this literally, and denied enrollment to persons 
who were not actual physical residents on said dat-e. This ruling 
continued to be the practice for nearly five years. It was corrected 
bv the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General in the Joseph D. 
^eargain case, rendered March 16, 1903. FoHowing this opinion 
many cases were readjudicated, but the error proved costly to the ap- 
plicants and put the department back in its work. 

(g) The act of June 28, 1898, also provided that the Commission 
to the Five Civilized Tribes should have access to all rolls and records 
of the several tribes. Notwithstanding this provision the work of en- 
rollment ran on for more than four years before the commission 
obtained possession of the more important rolls of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Nations. The full force and gravity of this fact can be 
seen from the report of the commission rendered January 23, 1903, 
in the case of Bettie Lewis. Furthermore, as I found recently, there 
were important rolls which were never delivered to the commission 
until long after the close of the enrollment work, and of the exist- 
ence of which the commission and its successor were ignorant. 

(h) In conclusion, this act, as administered, was well adapted to 
purge the rolls of names wrongfully inscribed thereon, but it was 
inoperative to restore names improperlv striken therefrom. 

(4) Act of May 31, 1900 {81 Stat,,^ 221). —This act, in so far as 
material to the enrollment question, reads as follows: 

That s:H<l couunission shnU coiitlnne to exerclso all authority heretofore con- 
ferred on It hy law. Rut it shall not receive, consider, or make any record of 
any application of any i)erson for enrollment as a nien)l)er of any trlhe in Indian 
Territoi-y who has not heen a reco^nizeil citizen thereof, and duly and law- 
fully enrolled or admitted as such, and its refusal of such applications sliall he 
final when approved by the Secretary of the Interior : Provided, Tliat any Mls- 
siFsippl Choctaw, duly identified as such by the United States Commission to the 
Five Civilized Trib<*8. sliall have the ri^ht, at any time prior to the approval of 
the final rolls of the Choctaws and Chickasaws by the Secretary of the In- 
terior, to make settlement within the Choctaw-Chickasaw country, and on proof 
of the fact of bona fide settlement may be enrolled by the sjiid United States 
Commission and by the Secretary of the Interior as ('hoctaws entitled to al- 
lotment : Provided further. That all contracts or agrreements looking to the 
sale or Incumbrance in any way of the lands to be allotted to said Mississippi 
Choctaws shall be null and void. 

The purpose of this act was to expedite the enrollment work. It 
was much better calculated, however, to secure expedition than to 
permit of the enrollment of all who were entitled to citizenship. 
The purpose of the act is plainly set forth in one of the early reports 
of the Dawes Commission. It is understood in the department and 
I have been so informed on reliable authority that one of the Com- 
missioners to the Five Civilized Tribes, contrary to the wishes of 
th© department, secured the insertion of this provision in said act 
of May 31, 1900. The act failed, however, to accomplish its pur- 
pose, as appears from one of the reports of the Dawes Commission. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



120 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Bein^ unable to apply for enrollment in the class known as " Choc- 
taws by blood," many persons made application as Mississippi Choc- 
taws. The taking of their testimony and the adjudication of their 
cases required fully as much, if not more, time than would have 
been required had they applied as Choctaws by blood. Besides, the 
department required a memorandum to be prepared in each case for 
the inspection of the Secretary and Indian Office. This memoran- 
dum was in fact a record and was fully as voluminous as the regular 
record cases. 

Much testimony was taken in the Mississippi Choctaw cases, but 
the applicants as a rule were too poor and too ignorant to get to- 
gether the necessary proof of ancestry. Although much testimony 
was also taken in the so-called " memorandum cases," the same result 
always followed in such cases, to wit: The applicants were denied 
enrollment merely upon the jurisdictional ground that their names 
were not to be found upon the tribal rolls. These decisions were 
deemed necessary, regardless of the apparent merits of the cases. 
This fact explains why there are a considerable number of people in 
the Five Civilized Tribes who claim Indian blood but who have 
failed to secure enrollment. It will be easily seen that the applica- 
tions of such persons were not in fact received and treated as appli- 
cations, and their cases were not disposed of upon substantial grounds. 
In a subsequent connection I will show the percentage of rejected 
persons involved in ^'memorandum cases" claiming one- fourth or 
more Indian blood; also the percentage of Mississippi Choctaws who 
v;ere denied enrollment and who claimed one-fourth or more Indian 
blood. 

Obviously, by virtue of this act the tribal rolls became exceedingly 
important as a jurisdictional basis in the making of the final rolls. 
Such importance should not have been given to the tribal rolls unless 
they were entitled to great credit and respect. Notwithstanding this 
is true, consider what I have said hereinbefore concerning the un- 
lawful and unwarranted striking of names from the tribal rolls 
without notice for political, personal, and jurisdictional reasons. 

It is also obvious that if the tribal rolls were to play such an im- 
portant part in the work that the commission should have been sup- 
plied with all of such rolls, yet it is a fact that the commission did 
not obtain the important rolls until nearly three years later. Fur- 
thermore, there Avere certain of such rolls which were never obtained 
by the commission but which were secreted by parties in interest 
until after the enrollment work closed. 

It is also plain that all such rolls should have been thoroughly 
indexed and made available for examination both by the commission 
and by the applicants and their attorneys. Notwithstanding this is 
true, a number of the important rolls were never indexed and, as a 
general rule, were not open to the inspection of attorneys. Relative 
to the indexing of the rolls I will speak further and in a subsequent 
connection. 

Under this act the commission was barred from receiving the 
applicaticm of any person for enrollment as a member of any tribe 
in the Indian Territory who had not been " a recognized citizen 
thereof and duly and lawfully enrolled or admitted as such." The 
word " and " following the word '" thereof " might have been con- 
strued to mean "or" as has often been done in statutory construc- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 121 

tion. Had this been done the commission might have taken juris- 
diction of the cases of a considerable number of persons who were 
in various ways recognized as having the privileges of citizenship. ' 
If this had been done their cases could have been decided upon their 
merits ralher than upon jurisdictional grounds. In this connection 
I have reference to people who were accorded school privileges in 
the Indian nations who were granted permits to employ noncitizens 
and whose rights were adjudicated in the tribal courts. 

A liberal construction of the act would have rendered its harass- 
ings applicable only to the decision of the commission leaving in the 
Secretarv of tlie Interior a supervisory authority to enroll the appli- 
cants, f base this view upon that portion of the act which said that 
the decisions of the commission should be final " when approved by 
the Secretary of the Interior.'' By implication such decisions would 
net have been final had the Secretary refused to approve the same. 

There are two reasons which may be attributed to the enactment of 
legislation such as that which was embodied in this act. It was 
thought necessary thkt the enrollment work be completed and the 
allotments of the lands made before statehood could be accom- 
plished. Time has shown that this theory was not well founded. 
The origin of such acts is also to be found in the pressure which 
was brought upon Congress by the white population in Indian Ter- 
ritory and elsewhere, due to a 'desire to further business interests 
through the early allotment of the land and the establishment of a 
new system of land owning and leasing. 

(5) Choctmv mid Chickasaw agreement^ ratified hy art of July 7, 
1902 {32 Stat., 641). aiid hy tfie tribes September 25. 1902.— Tim 
acts of June 28, 1898, and May 31, 1900, were, by reference, made a 
part of this agreement. There were two new features in it, however, 
of great importance. The first of these related to " the closing of the 
rolk." In passing, I desire to say that the term, " the closing of the 
rolls," has during the i)r(>gress of the enrollment work had two 
distinct meanings. For a long time it related to the receipt of appli- 
cations, but had no reference to the closing of the enrollment work, 
it being supposed as a matter of course that pending applications 
would oe disposed of as rapidly as practicable. To close the rolls, 
accordingly, meant to bar all further applications. It now means 
the closing of the enrollment work. 

Section M of said act (or agreement) provided that the Commis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes might receive applications for 
enrollment for 00 days following the ratification of the agreement 
by the Tribes; that is to say, within 90 days from and after Sep- 
tember 25, 1902. This section was construed by the commission as 
prohibiting it from receiving applications or even taking up cases 
of its own motion. The action of the commission was approved by 
the department in an opinion rendered by the Assistant Attorney 
General August 22, 1904, in the case of Esau Wolf, who was a full- 
blood Chicka.saw and whose name was enrolled on the 1893 roll of 
the Chickasaw Nation. Thus the law stood in respect to application 
until April 26, 1900, during which period all persons, including 
applicants and their legal advisers, had legal notice, by virtue of the 
terms of the statute, that it would be of no use for them to make 
application for enrollment. During this time there were some per- 
sons who did attempt, however, to make application. Some of such 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



122 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

» 

applications were returned to the parties, while others were held in 
the files of the commission and the department 

As said acts of June 28, 1898, and May 31, 1900, have been dis- 
cussed suflSciently heretofore, it is unnecessary to call further atten- 
tion to them, except to note that the Choctaw and Chickasaw agree- 
ment, by incorporating the latter act, retained a provision which 
necessarily operated to restrict opportunity for enrollment. In addi- 
tion to this, said section 34 imposed other restrictions which also bore 
heavily upon persons seeking enrollment. 

This agreement also made provision for a court, known as the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, which was created for the 
purpose of reviewing decisions theretofore rendered by the United 
States courts for the Indian Territory admitting applicants to en- 
rollment upon appeal from decisions "rendered by the Dawes Com- 
mission under the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 321). 

The provisions creating this court and prescribing its duties are 
to be found in sections 31, 32, and 33 of the sai^ act of July 1, 1902. 
These sections were given immediate effect, whereas the agreement, 
taken as a whole, was held over to await the ratification of the tribes. 

The decisions to be reviewed by the court were rendered by the 
United States courts in 1898 or thereabouts, and the law which 
i«.uthorized such decisions declared that the same should be final. As 
a result, there was a period of approximately four years of repose^ 
during which the court claimants had every reason to believe that 
their rights were finally settled and that they could safely invest 
their means in building homes and improving the land occupied by 
them. 

In the " test case " of J. T. Riddle et al, the citizenship court ren- 
dered a decision December 17, 1902, setting aside, vacating, and hold- 
ing for naught all decisions where applicants had been admitted to 
enrollment upon appeal to the United States courts. This decision 
was of a verv sweeping character and affected several thousand per- 
sons adverselv. The impression prevailed at the time that if the 
court had ruled otherwise it would have ruled itself out of office^ 
or at least have greatly shortened its official life. Thus at the outset 
the court was placed in a position where it w^as very much to the 
interest of its members to decide against one class of persons and in 
favor of another. The effect of the decision in the test case was 
to throw upon the applicants the burden of transferring their cases 
lo the citizenship court for a trial de novo. 

The decision of the citizenship court in this case rested upon two 
grounds, (1) that the United States courts, proceeding under the 
act of June 10, 189C>, had admitted persons to citizenship, or to enroll- 
ment as such citizens, in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, re- 
spectively, without notice of the proceedings in such courts being 
given to each of said nations, and (2) that the proceedings of the 
United States courts under said act of June 10, 1896, should have 
been confined to a review of tlie action of the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, upon the papers and evidence submitted to said 
commission, and should not have extended to a trial de novo of the 
question of citizenship. 

The character of much of the enrollment legislation has been such 
as to cause the rights of many Indian applicants to be adjudicated 
upon jurisdictional and technical, rather than meritorious, grounds, 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



/ FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 123 

and nowhere is this more apparent than in the sections relating to 
the citizenship court. Under the heading, "Act of June 10, 1896,'* 
I have pointed out the confusion which resulted durinff the last davs 
of the enrollment work, just prior to March 4, 1907, oecause of the 
differences of opinion between the Department of the Interior and 
the Department of Justice as to whether the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes had, under the act last referred to, jurisdiction to 
consider the case of any person theretofore enrolled or otherwise 
duly recognized as a citizen. This question did not stop with the 
decisions of the Dawes Commission, and the Department of the In- 
terior was required later to determine whether it would enroll cer- 
tain claimants who had at one time been parties to the suits in the 
United States courts. Some of these persons were affected only by 
the blanket decision in the Riddle case and had never made any effort 
to transfer their cases to the citizenship court. There were others 
who, following the decision in the Riddle case, transferred their 
cases to the citizenshio court, but T^ere there, by specific judgments, 
denied enrollment. The Department of the Interior adopted the 
view that, if the Dawes Commission had no jurisdiction in any 

rific case, it followed that the United States courts on appeal were 
without jurisdiction therein. This conclusion was based upon 
the reasoning that an appellant court must necessarily be confined 
to cases coming properly before the lower court. The attorneys for 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations also urged, in certain cases, that 
the decisions of the courts, for or against any person, were without 
force or effect in the case of persons having a tribal status prior to 
the act of June 10, 1896. In other cases, liowever. these attorneys 
argued with much stress to the contrary. Their conflicting views 
are set out in the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Interior Department of December 8, 1905, in the case of Mary 
Elizabeth Martin. 

The rule of adjudication thus adopted by the department was fol- 
lowed until the opinion of the Attorney General of February 19, 1907, 
in the case of William C. Thompson et al. In that opinion the 
Attorney General held that the commission, and the courts upon ap- 
peal, had* jurisdiction of all applications regardless of whether or 
not the parties were prior to June 10, 1^6, recognized and enrolled 
citizens, at least such was the construction placed upon the opinion 
of the Attorney General by the enrolling officers in the Department* 
of the Interior in the brief period between February 19 and March 5, 
1907, during which time the names of many persons were stricken 
from the approved rolls, while others whose cases were found pond- 
ing before the department were simply denied enrollment in original* 
decisions. 

The persons thus affected were of two classes, (1) applicants hav- 
ing double affirmative judgments — that is to say, persons who were 
granted enrollment not only by the Dawes Commission under the 
act of June 10, 1896. hut also, upon appeal taken by the adverse party 
in interest, by the United States court, and (2) persons who were 
denied enrollment bv the Dawes Commission in 1896 and relied only 
upon the reversal of the decisions of the commission upon appeal to 
the United States courts. 

There was a considerable number of persons of the class having 
double judgments in their favor who did not transfer their cases to 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



124 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 



> 



llie citizenship court, thinking that they were not under obligation 
to do so. Some of them were even advised by the attorneys for the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations that they were not obliged to make 
the transfer. Among the perscms of this class was John E. Goldsby,j 
whose status as an enrolled citizen has been recently restored pur- 
suant to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States o^ 
November 30, 1908. 

Continuing further with the class of persons having double aflirma- 
tive judgments, I desire to call your attention to a letter written 
March 4, 1907, by Attorney General Bonaparte to the President ad- 
vising him that said opinion of February 19, 1907, was intended to 
apply only to those cases where applicants were admitted by the 
United States courts after reversal of the decisions of the Dawes 
Commission but not to those cases where the applicants had double 
judgments in their favor. By letter of the Secretary to the Presi- 
dent, dated March 5, 1007, Mr. Bonaparte's letter of March 4, 1907, 
was forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior with instructions to 
treat it as an opinion. These instructions did not reach the Secretary 
of the Interior until March G, and hence came too late to be of any 
service in connection with the enrollment work, which by mandate of 
Congress had been brought to a close two days earlier. 

Following the Goldsby case, the Department of the Interior has 
restored many persons who were stricken from the rolls to the status 
theretofore enjoyed by them. Among such are persons who rely 
merely upon decisions of the United States courts, as well as others 
who were granted enrollment both by the Dawes Commission and by 
the United States courts; but nothing short of remedial legislation 
will aflFcrd relief in the parallel cases which were pending and unde- 
cided on February 19, 1907. For example, the case of Myrtie Ran- 
dolph and her brother. William Thompson, admitted by the United 
States court upon appeal from and reversal of the decision of the 
Dawes Commission should be heard upon its merits. Likewise the 
case of Loula West et al., where the applicants had double judgment 
in their favor but who unwittingly transferred their cases to the 
citizenship court. In so doing, however, they protested against the 
jurisdiction of the court. There are other cases which aUo deserve 
reconsideration en their mef its regardless of the action of said citi- 
zenship court. 

• In contrast to the decision of the citizenship court and with refer- 
ence to the question of proceedings in the United States courts, I 
desire to invite your attention to the decision of Judge Clayton of the 
Ignited States Court for the Central District of the Indian Territory, 
rendered in the Jack Amos case. (See p. 110, Eighth Annual Re- 
port of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.) 

Respecting the ruling that the decisions of the United States 
courts were void in the absence of notice to both nations, I desire to 
say that at the time of said decisions and long prior thereto the 
department regarded the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes as each 
owning an undivided fractional interest in the lands occupied by 
both tribes, and whenever any of such lands were sold the proceeds 
were divided according to such fractional interest. Accordingly, an 
increase or decrease in the membership of one trfbe Avas not impor- 
tant to the other. Such a change would simply affect the pro rata 
interest of the members of one tribe without affecting the other tribe 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 125 

in the least. Unless I am right in this, every intermarried citizen in 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations should be barred, were it not 
for the agreement of 1902j from allotment, for the intermarriage 
laws, which were a species of admission to enrollment, were enacted 
by each nation without notice to or consent of the other. Consider, 
further the decisions of the Dawes Commission in 1896, admitting 
applicants to enrollment. No one has ever challenged the validity 
oi such decisions because of lack of notice. Consider also the case 
of Cyrus H. Kingsbury, which was one of the applications disposed 
of in the opinion of Feoruary 19, 1907. There the Attorney General 
foimd that the applicant was entitled to enrollment as the offspring 
of parents adopted by act of the Choctaw Council, and no sugges- 
tion whatever was made that notice to the Chickasaws was. neces- 
sary. It is significant, in this connection, that in apportioning the 
$750,000 fee paid Mansfield, McMurray, and Cornish the citizenship 
court itself recognized the principle of separate fractional interests 
in the two nations. 

There is another feature of the decisions of the citizenship court 
which I desire to bring to your attention. It has been given out 
frequently and with much publicity that there was great fraud on 
the part of citizenship applicants. But, after careful examination 
of such decisions, I find that the cases of a large number of the 
applicants fall within the rulings in a few leading decisions, which 
turn solely upon construction of law — decisions in which the citizen- 
ship court stands practically alone. 

Faith in the judicial fairness of this court has been much affected 
(1) by the important part which Messrs. Mansfield, McMurray, and 
Cornish took in securing the legislation to which the court owed its 
existence and the judges their positions, and (2) by the fact that, 
fc^owing the refusal of Secretary Hitchcock to allow said attorneys 
a fee in excess of $250,000, there came a sudden change of law, under 
which the citizenship court was authorized to fix their fee, and, being 
so authorized, did allow a fee of $500,000 in excess oi the above 
amount. These facts are not conclusive evidence of intentional 
wrong and should not of themselves be so construed, but they do 
show a condition under which even a judge of the best of intentions, 
moved by sentiments of gratitude and good will, might uncon- 
cciously become unfitted to dispense justice. Upon the whole I am 
constrained to believe that the leading decisions of the citizenship 
court should be reviewed by some other tribunal. 

(6) Agreement with the Cherokees^ approved hy act of July 1, 
1902 {32 Stat., 716), amd ratified hy the Cherokee Tribe August 7, 
1902. — This agreement also incorporated, by reference, the said acts 
of June 28, 1898, and May 31, 1900, thereby retaining and continuing 
in the Cherokee Nation, as in other tribes, the limitations on juris- 
diction described therein. A further provision of a restrictive nature 
was also included in the Cherokee agreement. Section 30 thereof 
reads as follows: 

During the months of September and October, in the year nineteen hundred 
and two, the Commission to the Mve Civilized Tribes may receive applications 
for enrollment of such infant children as may have been bom to recognized 
enroUed citizens of the Cheroltee Nation on or before the first day of September, 
nineteen hundred and two, but the application of no person whomsoever for 
enrollment shall be received after the thirty-first day of October, nineteen 
hundred and two. I 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



126 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

In the Cherokee case of George Tinney a difference of opinion 
arose between the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes and the 
Indian OflSce as to the proper construction of this section, but I 
gather from the papers before me that the position of the former 
was that his office and the department were without jurisdiction to 
consider any citizenship case not pending prior to October 31, 1902, 
and, further, that said commissioner applied this rule not onlv to 
prevent the making of new applications but also to bar his office from 
considering, of its own motion, the cases of persons whose names w(^^ 
already upon the tribal rolls. The Indian Office, however, was of 
the opinion that the commissioner would not have performed his 
duty of investigating the rolls until all names on any roll made since 
the removal of the Cnerokees to the Territory in 1835 were accounted 
for. The question was submitted to the Assistant Attornel General, 
who, in an opinion rendere'd June 19, 1905, construed said section 
30 in connection with sections 25, 26, and 27 of the same act and 
reached the following conclusion : 

As the roll of l.SSO is con firmed, those on th'.it roll living aud not shown to 
have become expatriated are by force of these acts enrolled citizens of the 
Cherokee Nation. No application for enrollment is necessary. If the attention 
of the commission Is In any manner called to the fact that they have omitted to 
enroll a living person whose name appears on the roll confirmed by Congrc^sa 
it is their duty to correct such error and to Inscribe such name on the roll made 
by them if it Is not shown that such person has in some manner lost or for- 
feited his citizenship. The provision of section 30 of the act of 1902, above 
quoted In the letter of reference, has no appliciition to such cases, but applies to 
l)ersons whose names do not appear upon the confirmed roll, who are called upon 
to establish their right by proof other than the roll Itself; otherwise the provi- 
sions of the act are brought into conflict with themselves. 

The Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes was not satisfied 
with this construction, and recommended reconsideration of depart- 
mental approval of said opinion. The result was that, April 16, 1906, 
the Assistant Attorney General rendered further opinion in the 
matter, holding as follow? : 

I am of the opinion that no one can read section 27, Incorporating into it the 
provisions of the acts of 1898 and 1900 as modified, without admitting that the 
commission must '* Investigate the right of all other persons whose names are 
found on any other roll'* than that of 1S8(). That duty arises the moment it 
jiuywlse api)ears to the commission that one claims cltlzenshlj) In the nation 
whose name Is borne on any tribal roll. Congress has nowhere required a 
formal application for enrollment. That is a purely administrative regulation 
for convenience of administration only which may excuse the commission from 
inspection of other rolls than that of 1S80 to ascertain that no name of a per- 
son living September 1, 1902, borne on such rolls, is omitted from their roll; 
but whenever such a i)erson appears and indicates a roll on which he is borne, 
the duty arises under the law to investigate the case and to ascertain whether 
his name there api)ears and was there placed ** by fraud or without authority 
of law." To hold otherwise Is to write Into or read Into the law something not 
enacted by Congress and. In addition to what It has enacted, Imposing upon the 
citizen a duty and a vigilance that Congress has not Imposed. Administrative 
regulations are for effectuating a law and convenience In Its administration, 
and can not amend or change its substantial requiremets by imposing conditions 
not Imposed by tlie act. (Morrill v. Jones, 106 U. S., 460.) 

I desire to call particular attention to this feature of the enrollment 
work in the Cherokee Nation. As will appear from the statements 
given above, there was a period running from October 31, 1902, to 
April 16, 1906, and covering nearly three and one-half years, during 
which the commission and the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 127 

Tribes were, by erroneous construction, failing to consider and oppos- 
ing the consideration of the enrollment rights of persons whose names 
were upon the rolls theretofore prepared by the tribal authorities. 
It was extremely unfortunate that these complicated questions were 
not settled by competent authority at an earlier stage in the eni'oll- 
ment work. Following authoritative construction, it became neces- 
sary under various opinions to rehear and reconsider cases. This fact 
explains why it was that so many rehearings were found necessary 
during the last year of the enrollment work. And out of this condi- 
tion arose the fact that there was such a large number of records of 
cases pending during the last weeks of the enrollment work which 
could not possibly be properly adjudicated. 

(7) Act of March 3, 1905 {33 Stat, 1048, 1060) .—This act was sup- 
plemental to the regular enrollment acts and authorized the Commis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes, for 60 days following the approval 
of the act, to receive and consider the applications of certain new- 
born children for whose enrollment no provision had been made. 
This act was restrictive in three respects : 

(a) It restricted the right to make application to the offspring 
of persons whose enrollment had theretofore been approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior. This was probably an unintentional de- 
fect in the law, but nevertheless it operated to draw a sharp dividing 
line between claimants who were equitably entitled to exactly the 
same consideration. That this is true will be readily appreciated 
when it is recalled that, at the date of said act, there were many 
worthy citizens whosQ applications were pending and who were sub- 
.sequently enrolled. There was no difference between such persons 
and others whose enrollment had been approved at an earlier date 
except that in the one case the administrative machinery had moved 
more slowly than in the other. 

(6) As the persons entitled to make application under the act must 
necessarily be the offspring of citizens whose enrollment had been 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior, there could be no question 
as to the citizenship of the children. Furthermore, it could not be 
questioned that such children were the wards of the Government and 
entitled to its assistance and protection. If such children were not, 
after securing their allotment, capable of holding the same except 
under restrictions, it was certainly most unfair to throw upon them 
the burden of taking the initiative in securing their rights. 

{c) Here again an arbitrary time limit was fixed for the tioing 
of a work when, in fact, experience had proven that the time required 
for such performance could not be computed in advance with mathe- 
matical precision. In this connection I would like to suggest that 
laws of this character might with fairness be approved so as to in- 
clude all persons born before or after a given date, but that when 
nich a work is laid out the administrative officers should be trusted 
to perform the same as rapidly as possible consistent wnth good 
administration, and, failing to do so, that they should be required to 
answer for their failure rather than the wards of the Government. 

(8) Act of April 26, 1900 {34 Stat., 137),— It was provided in this 
net that the rolls of the tribes affected thereby should be fully com- 
pleted on or before the 4th day of March, 1907, and that the Secre- 
tary of the Interior should have no jurisdiction to approve the enroll- 
ment of any person after said date. Time has shown that it was an 

Digitized by OOOQIC 



128 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

absolute plivsical impossibility to complete the work within the time 
prescribed in this statute. The fact is that the work was not and 
could not be completed by March 4, 1907, and the department is 
required each day to confront difficulties and to struggle with com- 
plicated questions which seem utterly beyond solution under its 
l^resent jurisdiction. It might, perhaps, have been possible for the 
department to complete the enrollment work within the time given 
it by Congress for that purpose, to wit, approximately one jear, had 
there been no extra duties placed upon the Secretary by said act. I 
have learned from the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes that the new work arising under that act, by reason of the 
provisions therein relating^ to the enrollment of children living March 
4, 1906, was of itself sufficient to provide work enough to last for one 
year. The result was that two years' work was thrown upon the 
department by the act and only one year was given in wnich to 
accomplish it. I desire to call special attention to the following 
specific matters: 

(a) Section 1 of this act provided that the Secretary of the Interior 
enroll persons whose names appear upon any of the tribal rolls and 
for whom the records in charge of the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes showed that application was made prior to T)ecem- 
ber 1, 1905, and which was not allowed solely because not made 
within the time prescribed by law. Upon first examination of this 
feature of the law it would seem that Congress had ^ven remedial 
legislation by extending the time for making applications until De- 
cember 1, 1905, but upon closer examination it will be seen that this 
law offered in fact but little relief. That this is true will be seen 
when it is remembered that the statutes limiting the making of appli- 
cations had not been repealed prior to December 1, 1905, but, instead, 
were enforced not only upon that date but until April 26, 1906. 
During the whole period following the closing of the rolls to the 
i^eceipt of applications no person would have been warranted in 
making application for enrollment and no attorney would have been 
justified in advising his client to do so. I think this explanation 
deserves serious consideration in view of the fact that some have 
opposed any further consideration of enrollment cases on the ground 
that claimants have had every possible opportunity of making 
•application for enrollment. On the contrary, there has been a 
period of several years during which the adjudication of enrollment 
cases has proceeded without there being any authority of law for 
the receipt of new applications. Moreover, as I have shown before 
in connection with the act of May 31, 1900, it profited a man nothing 
to make application unless he had been enrolled or recognized by 
some tribal authority, because, even if he did tender such application, 
it would necessarily be dismissed, owing to lack of jurisdiction. 

(h) Section 2 of this act provided that applications should be 
received for the enrollment of children who were minors living 
March 4, 1906, whose parents had been enrolled as members of the 
Choctaw, Chickasaw. Cherokee, or Creek Tribes, or who had applica- 
tions for enrollment pending at the date of the approval of the 
act. This provision was an improvement upon the act of March 8, 
1905, in that it provided for the enrollment of children of citizens 
having pending cases as well as the children of citizens whose enroll- 
ment had already been approved. It was defective, however, in 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 129 

another respect, due in all probability to failure to anticipate the 
different classes of cases that might arise. In most of the enroll- 
ment acts it was provided that persons who died prior to a given 
date should not be enrolled, Tbut that their interest in the tribal lands 
and moneys should pass to the tribe as a whole. There were cases 
where parents died a few days before the critical date, leaving minor 
children. Such children could not be enrolled under the act of April 
26, 1:906, because they were not the offspring of parents whose enroll- 
ment had already been approved or whose applications were then 
pending. 

In respect to the Mississippi Choctaws, I find that there was an 
error of construction on the part of the Commisicmer to tlie Five Civ- 
ilized Tribes, which must have caused many children to lose the 
rights of citizenship. In order that this may be understood, a word 
of explanation will be necessary, perhaps, concerning this class of 
Indians. There were two distinct stages in this work. Applicants 
were first identified as Mississippi Choctaws by the Commission to 
the Five Civilized Tribes, following which schedules of identified 
Mississippi Choctaws were prepared and approved by the Secretary 
of the Interior. After identification they had the right, for six 
months, to remove to and establish residence in the Choctaw-Chicka- 
sav country. Subsequent to their removal and upon submitting sat- 
isfactory evidence of settlement, their names were placed upon a roll 
similar to that established for native-lM)rn Choctaws. Like other 
rolls of citizenship, these Mississippi Choctaw rolls would be for- 
warded to the Secretary, and when Approved by him the persons 
named thereon became enrolled citizens with substantially the same 
rights as other Choctaw citizens. Accordingly, when the act of April 
26, IfKK), went into effect a question arose as to whether their minor 
children living March 4, 1906, were entitled to enrollment. The C/om- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes erroneously held that they 
were not so entitled, and, of course, during the period while his ruling 
was in effect the time in which they could make application was 
rapidly passing. The matter was brought to the attention of the 
department and, in a decision rendered May 25, 1906, in the case of 
Willis Willis, the Secretary of the Interior ruled that the children 
of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws living March 4, 1906, were entitle<l 
to enrollment under said act of April 26, 1906. When in Muskogee 
last October or November, I learned from the office of the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes that, after receiving said decision 
of May 25, 1906, the practice was changed and the children of Mis- 
sissippi Choctaws enrolled without further discrimination against 
them, but that there was no time to go back and take up the cases 
which had been disposed of under the act prior to said decision, and 
that no attempt was made to do so. Thus one-third of the allotted 
time was lost to the children of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws. 

But the Mississippi Choctaw children were not the only ones to 
suffer by erroneous construction. The children of Choctaw f reed- 
men fared even worse. Such freedmen were adopted years ago by 
the Choctaw Nation and their children were equally entitled to the 
benefits of the act of April 26, 190(). Without the knowledge of the 
defMirtment, the Commisioner to the Five Civilized Tribes adopted 
the construction that applications for the children of Choctaw freed- 
men would not be received, and public notice to this effect was given 

09282—13 9 Digitized by V^OOglc 



130 FIVE CR^ILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

bv means of posters posted upon the walls of the land office and prob- 
ably elsewhere. While in Atoka I secured a copy of this notice, 
which I inclose herewith, as Exhibit L, for your inspection. You 
will note that it contains the following words: 

The reception of applications Is limited to minor (hlldron of nionil)ors of the 
Choctaw and Chickasnw Tribes of Indians and to the minor children of perf»ons 
who have applications pending for enrollment as cilizenB of the said nations on 
April 26, 1906, and does not include the children of Choctaw and Vhickasau: 
peedmen, (Underscoring supplied.) 

This notice was signed as follows: 

Tams Bixby. 
Commissioner to the Fire Civilized Tribes, 

Mush'opee, Indian Trrritonj, April 26. /OOf;. 

The department did not learn of the erroneous practice of the com- 
mission until a short time prior to the expiration of the 90-day period 
for the making of applications. Upon learning of the situation, 
however, the department wired Commissioner Bixbv, under date of 
July 17, 1906, as follows : 

Referring to yonr letter of r^th Instant, you are directed to receive all appli- 
cations tendered under late acts for enrollment of Choctaw and Chickrsaw 
freedmen, and to render de<"ision in each case, the same to be reviewed by 
department. Letter follows relative to Ethel Pierson. 

It has been estimated that about 500 children lost their right to 
enrollment by reason of this error. The view held by the Depart- 
ment of the Interior concerning the enrollment of Choctaw freedmen 
w as also taken by the Attorney General in that portion of his opinion 
of February 19, 1907, relating to Ethel Pierson. 

(c) Section 2 of this act provided that the rolls of citizenship of 
the Five Civilized Tribes should be fully completed on or before the 
4th day of March, 1907, and that the Secretary of the Interior should 
have no jurisdiction to approve the enrollment of any person after 
said date. With the extra work imposed by the act itself in connec- 
tion' with the enrollment of the new-born children, it became abso- 
lutely impossible for the department to complete the work within 
the time prescribed, and to-day it may be said with perfect truth- 
fulness that the word "complete" falls far short of describing the 
condition of the enrollment work and the citizenship rolls, as of 
March 4, 1907. I have pointed out heretofore that mucJi of the work 
of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes had to be done over 
again because performed under misapprehension of the statutes to be 
administered. After authoritative construction of the law by the 
highest legal authority of the department, as a matter of justice and 
common fairness, it was incumbent upon the Secretary of the Interior 
to permit applicants to have rdiearings and to readjudicate their 
cases. During the last year of the enrollment work many cases in 
which there had been a difference of opinion on the part of the 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes and the department were 
remanded. By this action of the department, whether right or 
wrong, many persons were allowed to incur additional expense in 
securmg and submitting new testimony. It was not fair to permit 
them to do so and then refuse to give sufficient time to read and 
examine .the evidence adduced by them. The department realized 
the situation and during the early part of the year 1907 brought the 
matter to the attention of Congress. Referring to the correspondence 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 131 

on the subject, I find that the department, by letter of January 12, 
1907, furnished the Senate with copy of Indian Office letter of Janu- 
ary 10, 1907, wherein it was recommended that an extension of at 
least one year's time, from March 4, 1907, be granted for the com- 
pletion of the rolls of citizens of said tribes. In forwarding the said 
report, the Secretary of the Interior said : 

The department concurs in the views of the Indian Office. Tnless the tinje 
is extended, many persons entitled to enrollment will not be enrolled. The 
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and the commissioner have been for 
years taking testimony and rendering decisions in cases involving complicated 
questons of citizenship in these tribes, and some of the cases have not yet 
reached the department. 

While the department has disposed of most of the citizenship cases which 
have come before it, it apparently can not give due consideration to all the cases 
still pending and to be submitted by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes and the Indian Office within the time prescribed by the second section 
of the act of April 26, 1908 (34 Stat., 137). 

In a letter of March 1, 1907, further report was made to the Presi- 
dent of the Senate showing tiiQ number of cases which were pending 
in the office of the Secretary of the Interior on February 25, 1907, 
together with the number of persons included in said cases. Report 
was also made in said letter showing the number of cases received in 
the Secretary's Office from the Indian Office between February 25 
and March 1, 1907, together with the number of perscms affected 
thereby. 

March 2, 1907, the Pregident of the Senate was further advised con- 
cerning the niunber of cases pending before the Department of the 
Interior. 

PMnal report on this subject was made March 4, 1907 to the Presi- 
dent of the Senate. Therein it was shown that there were 2,023 
cases before the Secretary of the Interior which required examina- 
tion and decision after February 25, 1907, and on or before March 4, 
1907. The number of individuals included in the total number of 
cases was not stated in said letter of March 4, 1907, but they prob- 
ably averaged from two to five persons. The total number or per- 
sons could not have been less than 5,000 and probably did not exceed 
10,000. The unconditional closing of the enrollment work of the 
fixed date, to wit, March 4, 1907, worked a great hardship upon a 
number of Indians who were identified as Mississippi Choctaws a 
few days or weeks prior to that date. As to them, it oecame impos- 
sible to remove to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country and to establish 
proof of residence therein before the jurisdiction of the Secretary to 
approve their enrollment terminated. Accordingly, here, as in many 
other cases, there was injustice done and the usual period of six 
months for removal to said country was not allowed them. Other 
Indians, who were identified as Mississippi Choctaws, had sufficient 
time for removal to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country, and, in addition 
thereto, a liberal allowance of time to establish settlement and resi- 
dence therein. In my recent investigation of enrollment matters in 
Oklahoma I found that there were several families who were identi- 
fied within, the last week preceding March 4, 1907, in whose cases 
removal to the nation was physically impossible before that date. 
There were at least 15 persons, and perhaps more, included in these 
families. The majority of them were full-olood Indians. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



132 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

{(I) Section 3 of this act worked a change in the law relating to 
the enrollment of Creek freedmen, whereby several persons were 
ileprived of rights to which they were entitled under treaty between 
the United States and the Creek Nation, concluded June^ 14, 1866, 
ratified by the Senate of the United States July 19, 1866, and pro- 
claimed by the President August 11, 1866 (14 Stat, 785). Tlie same 
l^eople would, had their cases been reached and disposed of prior to 
April 26, 1906, have been enrolled as Creek freedmen, as was done 
in the cases of a number of other persons. Thus the law draws a 
sharp dividing line separating people whose rights were identically 
the same under the same treaty by according to one class and deny- 
ing to the other rights to which both classes were entitled. That 
this may be seen I refer you to Article II of said treaty of 1866, 
whereby the Creek Nation adopted the freedmen, the terms of adop- 
tion being as follows : 

Inasmuch as there are among the Creeks many pexsons of freedmen de- 
scent who have no interest iu the soil, it is stii)niated that hereafter these 
persons lawfully resklinp In said Creek conntry under other laws and usages, 
or who have been thus residlnj? in said country, and may return within one 
year from the i-atifieation of this treaty, and their descendants and such others 
of the same race as may be permitted by the laws of said nation to settle 
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Creek Nation as citizens thereof, 
shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native citizens, Including 
an equal Interest In the soil and national funds. 

Shortly after the close of the war a roll of Creek freedmen was 
prepared under the authority of the United States by Mr. J. W. 
Dunn. This roll was completed some time prior to March 14, 1867. 
The exact date I have never been able to leam. The roll, however, 
did not cover the whole period within which Creek freedmen were 
entitled to return to the nation, for it did not include any who thus 
returned between March 14, 1867, and the time when the year ex- 
pired in which return was permissible. The expiration of the time 
for return, if within one year from the date oi ratification, would 
have been July 19, 1867, or, if within one vear from the date of proc- 
lamation, August 11, 1867. The interval not covered by the Ihinn 
roll therefore included at least 127 days, or, if the right to returu 
continued for one year after the proclamation of the treaty, 150 days, 
and was a very considerable portion of the time allowed the freed- 
men. 

The rule followed with reference to the enrollment of Creek freed- 
men was based upon a paragraph in section 21 of the act of June 28, 
1898 (30 Stat., 495), which confirmed the Dunn roll and directed the 
commission to enroll all persons then living whose names were to be 
found on said roll and all descendants born since the date thereof to 
the persons whose names were found thereon, " with such other per- 
sons of African descent as may have been rightfully admitted by the 
lawful authorities of the Creek Nation." 

In applying the provision last referred to the department found 
it possible to accord to Creek freedmen all the rights to which they 
were entitled under said treat v of 1866 by enrolling (1) all living 
persons whose names appeared upon the Dunn roll, together with 
their descendants, (2) all persons admitted to enrollment by the 
tribal authorities by act of council or decree of court or commission, 
and (3) all freedmen who could establish by satisfactory proof that 
they maintained their residence in the Creek Nation following the 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN* OKLAHOMA. 133 

treaty or returned thereto witl in the cne year's time prescribed 
thereby, such persons having ))een adopted collectively by the tribal 
authorities through the medium of the treatj^ itself. 

But after the act of April 26, 1906, went into effect it was found 
imp(^ble to construe it so as to accord the rights granted by the 
Curtis Act and by the treaty of 1866. Under said act the right to 
enrollment was limited to (a) persons whose names appeared upon 
the Dunn roll, together with their descendants born since the date 
thereof, and (6) persons born subsequent to the date of the prepara- 
tion of said roll (the Dunn roll)^ together with their descendants 
bom since such admission. Realizing, however, the change being 
wrought in the law, the statute expressly excepted such freedmen 
as had theretofore been enrolled upon rolls approved by the Secre- 
tary of the Interior. Thus the law contains internal evidence of a 
change and proof that all Creek freedmen were not to be accorded 
equal rights. I know that the cases were very few that were denied 
under the new law, but on that account they would be the more easy 
to correct. I will cite two cases in illustration of what I have said, 
the first being that of Joe Harrison, which is the subject of an opin- 
ion rendered by the Assistant Attorney General October 12, 19()5, 
prior to the act under consideration ; the other was the Creek freed- 
men case of Prissy Carruthers, in which opinion was rendered bv 
the Assistant Attornev General May 31, 1906, construing said section 
3 of the act of April 26, 1906. 

(e) The second paragraph of section 3 of this act worked a change 
in the law relating to the enrollment of Cherokee freedmen, thereby 
depriving several people of rights to which they were entitled under 
the treaty between the I'nited States and the Cherokee Nation con- 
cluded Jiily 19, 1866, ratified by the Senate of the United States Jtilv 
27. 1866, and proclaimed by the President August 11, 1866 (14 Stat*., 
T99). The persons affected by this change in the law were compara- 
tively few in number and would have been enrolled, as other freed- 
men of the Cherokee Nation, had their oases been reached and dis- 
posed of a little earlier in the course of the enrollment work. Here 
again was an injustice done. To make this plain, I refer you to 
Article IX of the said treaty of 1866, which reads as follows: 

The Cherokee Nation having volnutarlly. In February, eighteen hundred and 
sixty-three, by an act of their national council, forever abolished slavery, hereby 
covenant and agree that never hereafter shall either slavery or involuntary 
servltiTde exist in their nation otherwise thjin In the punishment of crime whereof 
the party shall have been duly convicted in accordance with* laws applicable to 
III! the members of said tribe alike. They further agree thnt all freedmen who 
liave been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well 
»!* :»I1 free colore<l persons who were in the country at the commencement of the 
Kebellion and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, 
rnd their descendants', shall have all the rights of native Cherokees: PmriiUd. 
That owners of slaves so emancipated in the Cherokee Nation shall never receive 
rny c<jmi)ensation or pay for the slaves so emanclimted. 

A question may arise as to why it was thought necessary in the 
Cherokee and Creek Nations to make any provision for freedmen 
who might return. The fact that there were such freedmen who 
Were likely to return to the said nations is explained by the history 
of the times. During the Civil Wiir the Cherokees and Creeks di- 
vided into factions, part supporting the North and part the South, 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



134 FIVE CIVILIZEb TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

in active warfare. Many of the negroes, panic stricken, fled to neigh- 
boring States, particularly to Kansas, where they found a temporary 
refuge. It was well known that these negroes were not voluntary 
absentees and that they would return to Sieir old homes after the 
war was over, hence the provisions in the treaties which refer to such 
persons. 

In applying the article quoted above to the enrollment of Cherokee 
freedmen under the act of June 28, 1898, and later acts, three impor- 
tant questions arose. The first of these questions was as to whether 
the duty to return to the nation within the time stated, to wit, six 
months, applied to the former slaves of the Cherokee citizens as well 
as to the free colored persons who were in the country at the com- 
mencement of the Rebellion." After much controversy the depart- 
ment finally held, following the advice of the Assistant Attorney 
General, that the duty to return to the- Cherokee Nation within six 
months lay not only upon the free colored persons but also upon the 
former slaves of the Cherokee citizens. I understand that there is 
now a mandamus suit pending in the courts of the District of Co- 
lumbia involving this very point. The decisions rendered by the 
department and the Dawes Commission in that case show that the 
applicants were in fact the slaves of a Cherokee citizen and that 
there was no bar to their enrollment except that their physical return 
to the Cherokee Nation occurred a short time beyond the expiration 
of the time limit named in the treaty. 

The next question which arose was, for administrative reasons, even 
more important. If the duty lay upon all to return within six 
months, when did that period begin to run? The Commission to 
the Five Civilized Tribes adopted the construction least favorable 
to the applicants and proceeded upon the theory that the period ran 
for six months following July 19, 1866, and terminated January 19, 
1867. Many hearings were had and much testitnony was taken, at 
considerable expense to the Government and to the parties con- 
cerned, upon the assumption that this was the correct construction 
of the law. But in view of the fact that the treaty was not proclaimed, 
until August 11, 1866, the department, following the opinion of the' 
Assistant Attorney General of January 13, 1904, held that the time 
for return did not expire until February 11, 1867. Thus it will be 
seen that there was a period running from the date of the Curtis 
Act, to wit, June 28, 1898, to the date of said opinion, includihg over 
five years, during which a considerable portion of the Cherokee 
freedmen work was performed under an erroneous view of the law. 
AVhen wrongs like this were committed it was unreasonable to sup- 
pose that the mistakes causing such wrongs could be remedied in a 
brief period of time, particularly when the tribunal charged with 
ihe work was crowded with numerous other duties of an important 
character. 

Connected with the question of returning to the Cherokee Nation 
and residence therein was another important question. Did the 
treaty require actual, physical return to the nation and presence 
therein within the six months period, or could one temporarily absent 
without intention of taking up a new abode be regarded as con- 
structively present where his achial, physical return did not occur 
until a few days or weeks after the expiration of the time? This 
last question was answered by the opinion of the Aasistant Attorney 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE OIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 135 

General of April 16, 1904, wherein he held that Charles Foreman, 
who was temporarily absent from the Cherokee Nation as a member 
of the household of Chief John Ross while the latter was attending 
to oJScial business connected with the affairs of his tribe in Wash- 
ington, was not barred by the six months' period. This opinion was 
based upon the reasoning that, inasmuch as Ross was upon a public 
mission from the Cherokee Nation to the Government of the United 
States, he and all members of his party equally with him, including 
Foreman, were, in the view of the law, residents of the place from 
which the delegate was accredited ; and as Foreman returned to the 
Cherokee Nation speedily after the death of Ross, which occurred 
in August, 1866, it was clearly shown that he, Foreman, had not 
formed an intent to sever his citizenship in the nation and had not 
settled elsewhere with intent to remain. 

There were several other members of the household of John Ross 
who were not so fortunate, however, in the determination of their 
cases. John Morgan and his wife, Cynthia^ were also members of 
the household of Chief John Ross and were in every way entitled 
to enrollment as freedmen, except that a question arose as to whether 
they actually returned within the six months' period. Ross died in 
1866, but his body was not taken to the Cherokee Nation until 1867. 
It can not be stated exactly just when John and Cynthia Morgan 
i-eturned to the nation, but the Indian Office, in a report of June 18, 
1904, found that the preponderance of evidence snowed that the 
applicants returned to the Cherokee Nation in the latter part of the 
year 1866. The department, however, refused to enroll them, find- 
ing that their return was not until subsequent to February 11, 1867. 
AVnile the date of their return is not certain, it is clear that they did 
return within a very short time after the expiration of the six months' 
period, and that they were fully as much entitled to claim con- 
structive residence in the nation while absent with Chief John Ross 
as was Charles Foreman. The motion for review of departmental 
decision was denied, based upon the supposed decision of the Supreme 
Court of the Cherokee Nation, rendered in 1871. Said decision, how- 
ever, was not properly in evidence, and even the showing made did 
not disclose wnether the court's decision turned upon a question of 
law or evidence. Even if there was such a decision, it was not 
binding upon the department in the making of the Cherokee freed- 
men rolls under the act of June 28, 1898, and later acts. After the 
act of April 26, 1906, which limited the enrollment of Cherokee 
freedmen to those persons "who were actual, personal, bona fide 
residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11, 1866, or who actually 
returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation on 
or before February 11, 1867." A motion for review was denied by 
the department March 22, 1907, subsequent to the date fixed by 
statute for the closing of the enrollment work. This decision was 
based upon section 2 of said act of April 26, 1906. 

There was another case, that of Burrell Daniels, who was carried 
by force from the Cherokee Nation and held in peonage for several 
years in Mexico. Opinions were rendered in this case by the Assist- 
ant Attorney General, both before and after the act of April '26, 
1906, which demonstrated fully the changes effected in the law of 
enrollment by that act. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



136 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

There was another case of this class which may prove of far more 
importance, to which I have referred above in general terms without 
mentioning the names of the parties. I have in mind the ease of 
Lilly Lowe, et al., suit in which was filed in the Supreme Court of 
the District of Columbia to compel the Secretary of the Interior to 
correct the tribal rolls by erasing interlineations and notations there- 
from purporting to cancel the names of the applicants from said foils. 
A decision has already been rendered in this case by the Supreme 
Court of the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the 
Interior. This decision was rendered on demurrer following answer 
by the Secretary, in which he admitted in substance that th^ parties 
were the descendants of slaves held by Cherokee citizens. One of the 
points noted for argument in the demurrer was that the duty to 
return within six months from the treaty did not devolve upon ex- 
slaves and their descendants, it being contended in argument that 
that duty related only to the free colored citizens who were residing 
in the Cherokee Nation at thb outbreak of the war. The case is now 
pending on appeal before the Court of Appeals of the District of 
Columbia. 

(/) Section 4 of said act of April 2C, 1906, provided that no name 
should be transferred from the approved frecdmen, or any other ap- 
proved rolls of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek, or Semi- 
nole Tribes, respectively, to the rolls of citizens by blocxl unless the 
records in charge of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
should show that application for enrollment as citizen by blood was 
made within the time prescribed by law by or for the party seeking 
the transfer, and the records of the commission were to be conclu- 
sive evidence of such application unless it could be shown by docu- 
mentary evidence that the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
actually received such application within the time prescribed by law. 
This section operated to the detriment of persons of mixed Indian 
and negro blood who claimed to be entitled to enrollment as citizens 
by blood. By this section a rule was prescribed as to such appli- 
cants which was not made to apply to other persons whose Indian 
blood was mixed with that of people who were not of African descent. 
As I have shown above, under para^aph {a), in discussing this act, 
any application by persons claiming citizenship by blood could be 
considered if filed prior to December 1, 1905. The origmal period 
for filing applications in the Choctaw Xation terminated Deceml>er 
25, 1902; in the Cherokee Nation October 31, 1902. In the Creek 
Nation the period terminated sometime later. By comparing section 
1 of this act with the provision relating to transfers to the blood rolls 
contained in said section 4. it will be seen that the people of mixed 
Indian and negro blood in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations had, 
approximately, three years loss within which to make their applica- 
tion for enrollment than other citizens by blood. In another con- 
nection I will refer you to specific cases of this kind. I might add 
that the practice followed by the commission of returning applica- 
tions to the parties tendering the same after the expiration of the 
time limit prescribed by the various agreements, naturally operated 
to reduce to the minimum the number of applications of record in the 
office of the Dawes Commission. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 137' 

IV. CoxDiTioxs Which Arose During the Course of the Enroll- 
ment Work and Which Obtained at its Close. 

If the plain truth be stated it must be said that the condition of 
the enrollment work on March 4, 1907, was far from finished; be- 
cause of this fact the department was compelled to cope with a 
situation most confusing. It was plunged into litigation, the end 
of which has not been reached. Doubtless Congress was convinced 
that time enough had been given to the enrollment work, but perhaps 
the legislators overlooked tne fact that the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes and the Secretary of the Interior could not give 
their whole attention to the work of enrollment. In fact, there were 
so many other important things to be done that it may be said con- 
servatively that the time at the disposal of the department for en- 
rollment work was probably not more than one-third of the whole 
period t^hrough which that work continued. 

(1) Other duties devoloing upon the Commission to th^ Fioe 
Civilized Tribes and the De^artifnent of the Interior in addition to 
enrollment work. — In addition to the enrollment of citizens and 
freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Department of the In- 
terior was required to allot the lands of said tribes among the per- 
sons entitled to share therein. The work of allotment involved (1) 
the appraisement and classification of the lands, (2) the selection or 
assignment of allotments, and (3) the decision of contests. There 
were a great many of these contests, and questions of fact and law 
w^re complicated. The people concerned, it must be remembered, 
were not '' blaiyket Indians," living in rude simplicity, but many of 
them were pei-sons of education and means, while others were inter- 
married whites who were as able to protect their own interests as 
people of the same standing but lived elsewhere. Consequently 
many of these contests were bitterly fought and required the taking 
of much evidence and deliberate consideration. In the disposition 
of such contests appeals Were allowed from the Commission or Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes to the Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs and from the decision of the latter to the Secretary of the 
Interior. Thus it will be seen that at the outset there was an impor- 
tant branch of the work following on the heels of the enrollment 
work which also demanded the attention of the same officials. 

The segregation and laying out of the town sites also required much 
attention and involved many difficult questions. Surveys had to be 
made, lots were scheduled to persons who were entitled to purchase 
the same, and many contests were adjudicated. Even to this day 
the town-site troubles seem far from settled. 

The Department of the Interior was also charged with important 
duties concerning railroads in the Indian Territory. The power 
was v^ted for a time in the Secretary to grant rights of way over 
Indian lands and to collect compensation for the benefit of the tribes 
collectively and individual members thereof. The amounts paid for 
such purposes were received by the Department of the Interior, to be 
distributed among the persons and tribes of interest. 

The granting of rights of way for telephone and telegraph lines 
also devolved upon the department, and there was a time during 
which this branch of the work required considerable attention. In 
granting these rights of way damages were assessed under authority 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



138 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

of the department and collected in the interest of individuals of the 
tribes as well as of the tribes themselves. It was the duty also of the 
department to collect taxes on the telephone and telegraph lines for 
the benefit of the various tribes. Another branch of the service 
embraced the sale of timber of the tribal lands. This line of work 
required much attention. To carry it out it was necessary for the 
department to prescribe regulations and to enforce the same. 

Prior to the allotment of the tribal lands it devolved upon the 
department to lease the same for coal and oil. This was a new field 
of endeavor and required considerable investigation and study. 
Regulations were adopted for the purpose, and the problems arising 
in connection therewith, along with other questions, continually 
arose for solution. 

Besides discharging these duties on behalf of the Indians, there 
were certain functions of a governmental nature which also fdl upon 
the department. In this connection it diould be remembered tnat 
the Indians with whom the department was dealing were not segre- 

fated upon a reservation, as in the case of the less civilized tribes, 
ut were intermingled with many communities of white persons. 
Owing to this condition, the Secretary of the Interior haa many 
matters to consider in the Indian Territory which were not in fact 
Indian matters and yet so closely allied with them and with the 
affairs of the Five Civilized Trilies that the two necessarily found 
their way to the same office for solution. 

If the work of enrollment could have proceeded equalljr as to all 
persons and to all tribes and have been accomplished prior to the 
allotment, leasing, and sale of lands, many persons would not have 
l)een set aside and delayed in order that the property interests of 
others might be advanced. While the enrollment cases of one class, 
for example, were pending others had already received their allot- 
ments and were calling upon the department to hasten the sale 
and leasing of their lands. Along with the work of enrollment 
came the removal of restrictions. This demanded much attention 
on the part of the department. In this condition of affairs it was 
possible to find that one man's enrollment case would be pending 
while another's was granted, allotment made, restrictions removed, 
and land disposed of. 

The acts relating to Indian Territory were, as a rule, to be admin- 
istered under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
the Interior. These rules and regulations were of course more 
lengthy than the statutes to which they related and required no small 
amount of time for their preparation as well as for their application 
to the business in hand. 

As the work progressed along these different lines it became neces- 
sarv time and again for new laws to be enacted. Much of the time 
anJ attention of the department were required in the preparation 
of reports, memoranda, and recommendations concerning such pro - 
posed acts, and as the rights of the Indians were embodied in treaties 
and general statutes stretching over a long term of years, great diffi- 
culty was experienced in making the new laws harmonize with exist- 
ing rights. 

Throughout the work manv novel questions arose for which no 
i.»recedents could be found. It was inevitable that mistakes should 
be made in construction and that work could not be completed upon 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 139 

the first attempt. Moreover, no one could anticipate the amount of 
work which was likely to arise, and new men could not be trained to 
be of value in less than a year. Coupled with all the other difficulties 
was the unceasing pressure which was brought upon the department. 
not only from Congress, but from other sources, to hurry the worii 
along. 

I have mentioned these difficulties in order that it may be realized 
fully that the arbitrary closing of the rolls on March 4, 1907, was 
unreasonable, in view oi all the circumstances, and necessarily worked 
great injustice to many persons. 

(2) How the work was apportioned and the law administered by 
the Department of the Interior, — In view of the fact that the la\v 
placed upon the Secretary of the Interior many duties which could 
not be delegated to others, it was inevitable that a state of congestion 
should result in the work at headquarters. The department was 
represented in the field work by. three distinct branches of the service ; 
first, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes; second, the United 
States Indian inspector for the Indian Territory ; and, third, United 
States Indian agent for the Union Agency, at Muskogee. While 
the duties of these respective officers varied * greatly, it was neces- 
sary for them to cooperate in many respects. As a general rule, 
however, they worked independently and were able to cope success- 
fully with the administrative problems devolving upon them, but in 
the course of their work they met with many complicated legal prob- 
lems involving great property interests, which necessarily had to be 
referred to the Secretaiy of the Interior for final disposition. 

All of the work commg from these three branches of the service 
centered in the Land Division of the Indian Office. ITiere the con- 
gestion began, and men who were required to pass judgment upon 
all of the questions coming within the jurisdiction of the Dawes 
Commission were also required to familiarize themselves with the 
work of the inspector ancl the Indian agent and to acquaint them- 
selves with the laws and rulings relating to Indian business gen- 
erally. As a rule the work of the Indian Office came to the Secretary 
of the Interior in the form of reports or recommendations, with 
which were transmitted the papers relating to the various matters. 
Allotment contest cases were an exception to this general rule. As to 
such, the decision of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was final 
in the absence of appeal. I might add that there has probablv never 
l>een a time during the course of the Indian Territory wort when 
the Indian Office was supplied with a large enough force to handle 
that work with the rapidity which Congress has demanded. 

Practically all the work relating to Indian Territory was required, 
after leaving the Indian Office, to pass through the office of the Sec- 
retary of the Interior. There it was handled in a branch of that 
office known as the Indian Territory Division. In that division a 
great bulk of the work falling upon the head of the department was 
l>erformed, but at no time was there a force sufficient to handle all of 
the work as speedily as should have been done in view of the early 
closing of the roll. '\^Tiile this division was organized primarily for 
administrative purposes, it was called upon to decide many questions 
of law and to perform functions ofttimes of a largely judicial nature. 
The questions encountered in this division were occasionally referred 
to the Assistant Attorney General for opinion. Here, as in the Land 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



140 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Division of the Indian Office, was further congestion. I can speak 
from experience in saying that the examiners were required daily 
to cope with problems affecting all the different branches of the 
service in Indian Territory. At this point it is possible to explain 
the causes for a considerable portion of the delay which occurred in 
the different lines of work. When a particular case would be re- 
fen'ed to the Assistant Attorney General for opinion all other cases 
would necessarily be held up lintil that opinion was rendered. In 
like maimer tliere were several important cases referred to the courts 
for solution ; for example, the case of the intermarried whites, which 
was submitted to the Court of Claims February 24, 1908, and which 
was not finally disposed of by the Supreme Court of the United 
States until November, 1906. As the cases involving the inter- 
married whites also embrltced other members of the same family 
who claimed Indian blood, it was necessary (1) to read the testimony 
in such cases and to adjudicate the siime from the standpoint of the 
Indian members of the family, and (2) after the decision of the 
Supreme Court, to reexamine the same records to ascertain whether 
the intermarried member of the family was entitled to enrollment. 

After the opinions by the Assistant Attorney General and the 
decisions of tlie couils it was frequently necessary to readjudicsite a 
considerable number of cases, and much time was consumed in so 
doing. Prolific of delay were tl>e numerous requests made by attor- 
neys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations lor delav on the part 
of the department in respect to specific cases until decisions should be 
rendered by the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court in other cases, 
'which said attorneys claimed were analogous. For some time the 
department heeded these requests, but found eventually that when the 
decisions of said court were rendered it could not, as a general rule, 
acquiesce therein. 

Although important decisions were rendered hy the Secretary of 
the Interior affecting many cases, there was no provision for the 
general publication and distribution of such decisions or of the opin- 
ions of the Assistant Attorney General relating to the affairs of the 
Five Civilized Tribes. As a result, the attorneys practicing before 
the department were ofttimes in no position to advise their clients, 
and applicants whose cases were rejected under one construction of 
the law had no means of knowing that a motion for review would in 
all probability have been entertained under a later construction. 

There is an exception of minor importance to the statement that no 
provision was made for the publication of opinions and decisions. 
A small book was compiled by the Commissioner to the Five Civil- 
ized Tribes and published during the latter part of 1906 containing 
a few opinions of the Assistant Attorney General. In rare cases 
opinions were published in the annual reports of the Dawes Commis- 
sion, but all of these publications put together foil far short of cover- 
ing the whole problem involved in the enrollment work, and the 
majority of them, when published, came too late to be of any real 
service. 

(3) Condition of the tribal rolls med hy the CoTrwiission and Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes in ^preparing the final rolls. — 
Many of the decisions of the department and the Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes were based upon the act of Mav 31, 1900 (31 
Stat., 221), to which reference has been made hereinbefore. The 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 141 

decisions as rendered wei-e not based upon the merits of the case, but 
simply upon jurisdictional grounds. That the basis of jurisdiction, 
viz, the tribal rolls, was far from perfect will be seen from what 
follows herein in connection with specific rolls. 

CHOCTAW ROLLS. 

(a) Census roll of 1896. — This roll was obtained by the Dawes 
Commission in 1897 or 1808, and hence was of no use in renderinsj 
decisions under the act of June 10, 1896. It was not indexed until 
March 25^ 1899, and therefore of no practical use until then. There 
are frequent notations upon the roll, such as " don't enroll," *' dead," 
'* doubtiul," written in pencil. These notations were not signed and 
show no authority by which they were made. In indexing the rolls 
the indexers omitted such names. This roll is a bis: book made up 
of county rolls. Much of the data entered upon the enumerators' 
rolls were not noted upon the index used by the Dawes Commission. 
Names were lined out upon county rolls, but no explanation given. 
Sometimes the word ** dead " was noted upon the page, but no 
authority was shown. Whole pages were entered without numbers 
and stricken off without explanation. The book for Red County 
contains 25 loose sheets, with names in pencil hardly discernible. The 
book for SkuUyville County is in poor condition: the handwriting 
is not uniform, the leaves are torn, and the pages look as if school 
children might have had access to the book and used it to practice 
their lessons in penmanship. 

{h) " (? " roll, — On this roll names are occasionally lined out 
and part of these pages have been remove^!. Like numerous other 
rolls, this book was doubtless kept in private custody, for the blank 
portions of it were used for the keeping of accounts, the recording 
of household recii>es, and the like. For example, I find on one page 
a running account between individuals covwinj^ a period of nearly 
three years. On another page I find directions m regard to painting 
and paint brushes. On page 236 are cooking recipes for making buns 
aiMi French rolls, for preparing brine to preserve butter, pickling 
tomatoes, and preparing chopped pickle, Chile sauee, and tomato 
catsup. Despite the condition of the book, it contained the names 
of many persons, but it was not indexed by the Dawes Commission 
as a book of reference in the making of the rolls. 

\c) The cemns roll of 1890 (No. 2). — This book was not indexed 
or regularly used by the commission. It contained some irregu- 
larities, but it was thought by Mr. Tell and Mr. Lewis, who were 
leadii^ Choctaws. to be better in some respects than roll No. 1. 
Reference was made to this book in extreme cases. It was alpha- 
betically arranged, but, inasmuch as the census was taken by counties, 
a thorough search in regard to any particular name would have 
required much painstaking labor, for the writing was not always 
the plainest. 

(d) Leased district payment roll of 1893, — In the year 1893 a per 
capita payment of $103 was made to the Choctaws. This roll is 
intended to show the persons entitled to payments as well as those to 
whom payment was actually made. I find that the handwriting 
was not always the same, and that names were occasionally entered 
in pencil. Now and then a name was erased. This roll does not show 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



142 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

intermarried whites or freedmen because they did not share in the 
payment. 

(e) CeTuus roll of 1885, — This roll was made up of books by 
counties. It was probably the best preserved and most complete 
roll of the Choctaw Nation in possession of the commission. Accord- 
ing to the report of the conmiission of January 24, 1903, it was dis- 
covered and delivered to the commission during the latter part of 
the year 1902. It was indexed sometime between January and April, 
1903. Looking back for a moment it will be remembered that the act 
of June 10, 1896, requiring the Commission to the Five Civilized 
Tribes, in adjudicating cases thereunder, to give due force and effect 
to the rolls of the said tribes. It is, therefore, very much in point to 
note that, notwithstanding the reauirements of the law, the com- 
mission never saw or used this roll tor more than six years after said 
act of June 10, 189G. These facts bring to mind the said act of 
May 31, 1900, and in connection therewith it should also be noted 
that, notwithstanding the limitations therein restricting the jurisdic- 
tion of the commission to enrolled or admitted citizens, this roll 
of 1885, constituting a part of the very foundation of the commis- 
sion's work, was not received until more than two years after its 
date. 

The census book for Atoka County contained an unsigned slip 
bearing the words "Atoka County, omitted to record in the book, 
James Gibson's family, 3 children; Harris Botosh, 3 children.'' 
Nothing is shown on this slip to identify the children further. 
Elsewhere in the book are other detached slips showing " nameh 
omitted.'' One of the bocks contains a note showing that it was 
retained in the possession of the census maker for several months. ■ 
In it is a note by the national secretary reading as follows: 

It seems that the book has been on the road to this ofRoe for several months. 

THE RECENTLY DISCOVERED ROLLS OF 1874. 

It has always been supposed by the department and by the officials 
of the conunission and the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
that the 1885 roll was the earliest roll in the Choctaw Nation. Time 
and again the commission endeavored to find all of the rolls. Its . 
painstaking efforts in this direction are set forth fully in report of 
January 24, 1903, in the Bettie Lewis case, copy of which is inclosed 
as Exhibit J, as well as the imperfect condition of the rolls and 
the careless methods followed in caring for and preserving them. 
During the course of my recent investigation in Oklahoma I dis- 
cx)vered, however, that there was another roll in excellent condition 
which was never delivered by the tribal authorities to the Comniis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes. This roll was not found in the 
archives of the Choctaw Nation when the 1885 roll was discovered 
during the latter part of 1902. In the course of the search then made 
a careful examination was conducted among the archives of the 
Choctaw Nation. It now appears that some time during the enroll- 
ment work this roll, with numerous other papers and records relating 
to citizenship, was removed -from the vaults of the Choctaw capitd 
building to the office of Messrs. Mansfield, McMurray & Comisn, at 
South McAlester, Ind. T. This fact came to my knowledge through 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 143 

an affidavit, inclosed as Exhibit A^, dated November 21, 1908, 
executed by William J. Thompson, of Pauls Valley, Okla., which 
affidavit was made at my request following his oral statement to the 
same effect. It reads in part as follows: 

While my case was pending I went to Tishomingo, and I tallced with Mr. 
Cornish, attorney for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. I aslved him where 
I could find the records pertaining to my citizenship, and he said at Tuskahoma ; 
xiud I went and got the national secretary, Mr. Wilson, and he showed me 
through the vault; and I examined the records there, which were very few, 
l>ur was told that Mr. Cornish had them with him at South McAlester. I left 
Tuskahoma and went to South McAlester to the office of Mansfield. McMurray & 
Oomlsh and, told the man In charge of the office that Mr. Cornish had sent 
me to look through the records of the Choctaw Nation. He looked surprised 
at first, and I told him who I was, and he then took me to a room at one side 
of the office which was partly fllle<l with boxes, and T went through a great 
many of those records and opened box after box and found records pertaining 
to national affairs — some of them pertaining to the net-proceed money. I looked 
further and found that some records entitled an act of the Choctaw Council, 
together with the date, all in writing. In searching through those papers I 
found a roll made in 1874 by Sheriff S. Gardner, of Blue County, and also rolls 
of other counties; and in this roll of Blue County of 1S74 I found the name 
of my father. Giles Thomi>«on, and all our family except myself, as I was 
not born at that time, as heretofore stated. I also found in sejuvhing over those 
records a large book about 8 or 10 inches wide and about 18 to 20 Inches in 
length; and It had a list of names, among which I found a list of persons 
entitled as heirs of Giles Thompson, to receive money from the Choctaw 
Nation. I also saw the name of Samuel C. Wall as the heir of Noah Wall In 
the same book. I brought the census roll of 1874 and those l)ooks with me to 
Kiowa, where my nephew, Mr. Ward, was, then Senator, and told him what I 
had done, and he said It would be all right. 

On my way home on the train taking the records with me I met Mr. Cornish 
and I told him that I went to Tuskahoma l)Ut found no records there pertain- 
ing to citizenship, and that I went to his office and told his help there that 
he had sent me over and that I had found the records there, and Mr. Cornish 
was very angry, turned very white, and said to me that he was surprised that 
the man In his office had permitted me to go through the records and that I 
was the only person who had ever gone through those re(;ords regarding citizen- 
ship. I told him I didn't think that I had done anything wrong, but that I 
thought I was entitled to see the records i>ertaining to my father's citizenship 
in this county; that that was all I wanted, and that if I was not entitled to 
citizenship I did not want it; all I wanted was a fair trial and I thought that 
he should allow me that. So we talked for some time and I told him that I 
didn't think that he should be mad at me, and he said that he was not so mad 
at me as he was at his help in his office. Mr. John.'^ton was on the train with 
me and Mr. Cornish got up and went over and sat down with him and I went 
on to Tlshmoningo to see my attorney, Mr. O. W. Patchell, and I showed him 
the roUs and books and told him what I had done. Mr. Cornish was very 
angry upon learning what I had done and he remarked that this put him in a 
very emtmrrasslng position. Afterwards Mr Patchell and I had a talk with Mr. 
Cornish In Tishomingo and he made the same statement about the books that 
he had to me; that Is, that It put him In a very embarrassing position for me 
to go to Tuskahoma and then for me to go to his office at South McAlester 
and find the records there In place of Tuskahoma. Mr. Patchell and I told Mr. 
Cornish that all we cared about the books and records was for the Information 
in them concerning my father and that we thought they should be made a part 
of the record, and he then agreed to have the national secretary to certlty to 
those records, and, accordingly, we turned them over to him. I don't think 
that Mr. Cornish ever carried out his promise. This occurred In September 
or October of 1904, as nearly as I can remember. 

At the time this affidavit was made I was pursuing my ftivestiga- 
tion at Pauls Valley, Okla. It occurred to me, however, that inas- 
much as section 13 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 312), re- 
quired all persons having the custody of tribal property, including 
papers, documents, records, etc., to deliver the same to the Secretary 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



144 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

of the Interior prior to July 31, 1908, it might prove possible to 
check up the statement of Mr. Thompson by reference to the records 
of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes received bv virtue of 
snid act. Accordingly, upon my return to Muskogee t requested 
Commissioner Wrignt to permit me to see the papers which were 
delivered to him by Messrs. Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish. With 
little difficulty we found the rolls referred to in the affidavit of Mr- 
Thompson, and I made a minute description of the same. I found 
that the roll in question was made in 1874. Upon the roll for Blue 
County I found the name of Giles Thompson, father of William J. 
Thompson, which confirmed the statement made in the latter's affi- 
davit. There were rolls for several other counties besides. The pa- 
pei*s upon which the names were recorded constituted rolls in tact 
as well as in name, being made up of sheets of paper pasted together 
so as to form long strips which when completed were rolled up like 
maps or wall paper. When unrolled these strips would reach across 
a good-sized room. Besides these rolls there were other important 
documents and records relating to citizenship which were delivered 
by Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish pursuant to said act of May 27, 
1908. For mv field notes on the recently discovered Choctaw roll of 
1874, see Exhibit B. 

It needs no argiunent to show that the rolls and records retained 
by said attorneys constituted material evidence which should have 
been considered in connection with many cases. That this was true 
no one knew better than they. In view of the said act of May 31, 
1900, the effect, because of jurisdictional reasons, can not be over- 
estimated. There is another aspect of the matter which should be 
determined: AVas there, by reason of the withholding of said records, 
a fraud worked upon the Government and upon mdividual appli- 
cants ? 

CHK'KASAW ROLLS. 

(a) Census roll of J 890. — This roll was delivered to the Dawes 
Conmiission in 1897 or 1898. It was therefore of no assistance in 
making up the rolls required by the act of June 10, 1896. The copy 
obtained bv the commission being typewritten, was evidently a 
transcript Jrom some former roll. On it are notations such as I 
have referred to heretofore in connection with the Choctaw rolls. 
These notations are unsigned. I was unable to discover when the 
index to this roll was prepared. 

(h) Pay roll of 1S9S {No. 1). — The commission foimd it necessary 
to rebind this roll. Extra pages were pasted in it. On one is found 
the following: 

Thej=5e leaves tli.it aro lucloFeO was a mistake, and I have copieil It over. 
Scotland Hawkins. 

From this I gather that Mr. Hawkins prepared the roll. The first 
IOC pages are in a very bad condition. Names were stricken off 
without explanation, and the amounts paid to various persons are 
not shown. Beginning on page 107 there seems to be a renroduction 
of the rolls and some attempt to arrange the names in alphabetical 
order. A characteristic of this roll is that the column designed to 
show to whom payments were made discloses that the money was 
rarely paid to the citizens of the tribe. I understand that it was the 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKI,AHOMA. 145 

custom in making this payment foi* the members of the tribe to 
assign their " head money," as it was called. This was often done 
at a considerable discount. On this roll I find the name of Watt 
Marnardy, which is a matter of considerable importance because of 
the fact that his son, Sam Marhardv, who is an Indian by blood, 
was erroneously enrolled on the Seminole freedman roll. Book No. 
1 of this roll was aot indexed. Concerning it my field notes contain 
the following entry : " Taken as a whole, this is a rather disreputable 
looking afi'air." 

(c) Pay roll of 1893 {No. £). — ^The condition of this book is even 
worse than that of book No. 1. It contains numerous defects, such 
as have been described with respect to other rolls. My opinion of 
these books at the time of my mvestigation, as noted in my field 
notes, is as follows : 

In conclusion, books 1 and 2 of the 1893 payment rolls in the Chickasaw Nation 
were jjoorly kept and reflected very much iii)ou the ability of the (^hlckasaw 
authorities to transact business iu a systematic manner. I am inclined to 
think that the entry of a name upon this roll should not count particularly in 
favor of an indlvidu:rl. I am also Inclined to think that the omission of a name 
from the roll mi^ht have resulted from corrupt causes. 

(d) May Tubby roll (No. 1), — ^This roll is supposed to be a part 
of the 1893 payment roll. It is made up of sheets of legal-cap paper 
fastened together. The writing is excellent, but the paper is in 
poor condition. Here, as elsewhere, I found names which were 
lined out without explanation. 

(e) May Tvbby roll {No, 2), — This roll is also in a poor condi- 
tion, being made up of loose .sheets of paper badly broken. Some 
of the pages contain the letterheads of various persons. One such 
sheet is in a precarious condition. This roll was received by the 
commission in September or October, 1898. The parts were not 
arranged in alphabetical order and were never indexed. When 
reference was made to them by the Dawes Commission the whole list 
had to be examined. This must have required much painstaking 
and conscientious effort. Never in any case have I found a nota- 
tion on this or any other roll initialed or signed, and in but two 
cases thus far have I found any explanation of the lining out of a 
name. 

(/) leshatubby roll. — This roll consists of two sheets of legal-cap 
paper. On it are names which were lined out, and the writing was 
sometimes done with pen and sometimes with pencil. This roll was 
not indexed. 

(g) Annuity roll of 1878. — This roll was delivered to the Dawes 
Commission late in 1902 or early in 1903. It is incomplete. See 
said report of January 24, 1903, in the Betty Lewis case. It is made 
up partly of legal-cap paper, and partly of other large sheets. When 
re(!eived by the commission it was not bound. Subsequently, paper 
covers were attached to it. The roll is made up by counties, and in 
some cases the names appear in alphabetical order. There are several 
facts which tended greatly to render this roll less valuable for en- 
rollment purposes than should have been the case: (1) It was not 
indexed, and the names for some of the counties were not even 
arranged in alphabetical order; (2) it showed only the names of 
the heads of families, omitting the names of women, when not heads 
of families, and minors; and (3) parts of the roll were lacking. 

60282—13 10 • Digitized by V^OOQIC 



146 FIVE OIVPilZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

By reason of the jurisdictional limitations contained in the act of 
May 31, 1900, it was* very unfortunate that the names of women and 
children were omitted. This was unfortunate for another reason. 
No roll of the Chickasaw Nation was obtained by the commission 
covering the interval of fifteen years between the 1878 and 1893 
Ohickasaw rolls. 

CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW. 

Decrees of courts and acts of tribal councils, — The commission was 
not furnished by the tribal authorities with lists of persons admitted 
by decrees of tribal courts and by acts of tribal councils; and no 
index was made of the names of such persons appearing in the Choc- 
taw and Chickasaw law books. Doubtless names of some of such 
persons were entered upon the census or other tribal rolls, but not 
necessarily so. There were other methods of recognition of citi- 
zenship, such as the granting of permits to employ noncitizens, per- 
mitting men to vote at the national elections, and the reception of 
persons in Indian schools and other public institutions; but there 
was no index prepared, and perhaps none would have been possible, 
of such persons. 

Bearing in mind what I have shown above, after careful personal 
^examination of the rolls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, 
ns well as the extensive report of the commission to the five civilized 
tribes in the Betty Lewis case, I desire to bring to your attention 
a statement contained in a memorandum of argument prepared by 
Messrs. Mansfield, Murray & Cornish, which was printed as Senate 
Document 298, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session. This statement 
reads as follows: 

A proper and natural inquiry is, What are the rolls of the tribes made under 
tbeir own laws, customs and usages, to which the laws refer, and to which the 
jurisdiction of the commission and the Secretary of tlie Interior is limited? 

The tribes have made rolls at various times, and for various purposes, and 
these rolls are in perfect physical condition, and are now in the possession of 
ihe commission and the Secretary of the Interior, having been turned over to 
them by the tribal authorities for use by the Government officers under existing 
law. Those rolls are the " net proceeds " rolls of 1S55, the " leased distlrict " 
payment rolls of 1893, and the census rolls of 1896. These rolls include all 
former rolls and census lists, and upon them appear the names of all persons 
to whom the tribes have ever accorded recognition. (Underscoring supplied.) 

The sweeping assertions contained in the above statement were 
intended to influence the minds of members of Congress and to 
prejudice them against remedial legislation in citizenship matters, 
^nd doubtless were not without effect in accomplishing that result: 
but note the statement that said rolls are " in perfect physical con- 
dition," and compare that statement with the description I have 
^iven of tho.se rolls. Note also the statement that said rolls are now 
^' in the possession of the commission and the Secretary of the 
Interior," and compare the assertion with the statement of Mr. Wil- 
liam J. Thompson, in his affidavit of November 21, 1908, which is 
corroborated by the inclosed schedule, marked Exhibit C. furnished 
by Commissioner Wright, showing the records and other papers 
relating to citizenship matters surrendered by said attorneys July 
25, 1908, Ipng after they could be of any service in enrollment wort, 
but in time to avoid the fine and imprisonment provided for by 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 147 

section 13 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 316). For my field 
notes relating to the original Choctaw and Chickasaw rolls, see 
Exhibit D. 

CHEROKEE ROLLS. 

My information concerning these rolls was obtained, as in the case 
of tne Choctaw and Chickasaw rolls, from officials of the Dawes 
Commission, who have had long service in connection with said 
records, and have, perhaps, better information concerning them 
than anv other persons. In taking up these rolls, I will begin with 
those of the most recent date. 

(a) Census roll of 1900. — This was a census roll prepared by the 
Government of the United States in the making of the Twelfth 
Census. It included, in part, citizens of the Cherokee Nation, but 
was not indexed. 

(&) Cens^is roU of 1896. — ^This roll was made by the Cherokee au- 
thorities. It is not in as good condition as the 1880 roll of that Na- 
tion, its appearance from page to page being more like that of the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations ; that is to say, there are occasional 
defects in it, and names are lined out from time to time without ex • 
planation. This roll was indexed by the Dawes Commission, and 
used in the course of the enrollment work. 

{c) Shawnee pay roll of 1896. — This roll was prepared or revised 
by the business committee reprcvsenting the Shawnees appointed by 
the Secretary of the Interior. The names are arranged on it in 
alphabetical order. 

{d) Delaware pay roll made under act of national council^ ap- 
proved March 30^ 1896. — This was a roll of Delaware Indians made 
by D. W. Lipe. It was not indexed. 
" {e) Pay roll of 1894. — This was a roll of Cherokees by blood. It 
was indexed by the Dawes Commission and used in the enrollment 
work. The citizens by blood receivexl a per capita payment of 
$265.70, known as the "strip payment." This roll is arranged in 
alphabetical order. I find that some of the names have been erased 
or scraped off with a. knife,' and that other names have been lined out. 

I find that the 1880 and 1894 and 1896 rolls were used from the be- 

fifinning of the work, but that the rolls made prior to 1894 were used 

by the commission on and after the adjudication of easels commenced. 

* (/) Census roll of 1893. — ^This roll was indexed as to freedmen 

only. 

(r/) Censtis roll of 1890. — This roll was not indexed. 

(h) Pay roll of 1890. — The citizens by blood of the Cherokee Na- 
tion were paid $13.70 per capita under this roll. It consists of four 
volumes. It was not indexed. 

(i) Pay roll of 1886. — ^This roll consists of 15 volumes, made up of 
the stubs of certificates showing payments made under the 1886 
roll. It was not indexed. Under it $15.95 per capita was paid to 
the citizens by blood. 

(;) Hester roll of 188i. — This was prepared by Joseph G. HcvSter 
and not by the tribal authorities. It is understood that it related 
merely to the band of Eastern Cherokees who never removed west 
cf the Mississippi. The Dawes Commission never had this roll. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



148 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

(k) Census and pay roll of 1883. — This roll was not indexed. 
Under it a payment or $15.50 per capita was made to the citizens by 
blood of the Cherokee Nation. 

{I) Pay roll of 1880. — This was a pay roll and should not be con- 
fused with the roll of 1880 referred to in section 21 of the act of 
June 21, 1898 (30 Stat., 495). It was not indexed. 

(m) Census roll of 1880. — This was the roll confirmed by section 
21 of the said act of June 21, 1898. It was a very important roll and 
was well made. I am unable to state positively whether it was in- 
dexed or not, but suppose that it was. It bore a very important part 
in connection with the enrollment of Cherokee freedmen. 

{n) Roll made under act of December S. 1879. — This roll was made 
up or receipts for payments made by D. W. Lipe for breadstuflFs. It 
\v'as not indexed. Under it $16.55 per capita was paid to the citizens 
b} blood of the Cherokee Nation. 

{o) Roll of 1876 or 1876. — For a time there was considerable 
doubt as to the existence of this roll. It was claimed by various 
parties that such a roll was made in accordance with the act of 
November or December 19, 1874, of the Cherokee Nation. Efforts 
were made to find the roll, but it was never possible to locate it. It 
was. of course, never indexed. Information concerning this roll may 
be round in the papers in the Cherokee enrollment case of William 
C. Smith. There was certainly a payment made under this act, 
although the record of payments may not have taken the form of a 
roll. Possibly the record was made in the form of receipts in a stub 
book. 

{p) Roll of 1867. — I desire to call particular attention to this 
roll, because of its age and the neatness of its appearance. It is, no 
doubt, a document of great value, and the entries thereon are in all 
probability authentic. The roll was made up by districts, but the 
names on it are not arranged in alphabetical order. Most of the 
persons enrolled thereon had Indian names. I am inclined to think 
that the value of this roll was not understood or appreciated by the 
commission and that it did not receive the attention to which it was 
entitled. 

{q) Chapman roll of 1852. — The roll in the possession of the com- 
mission is a copy of the roll on which a per capita payment was 
made to the Cherokee Indians residing east of the Mississippi River. 
This payment was made by Albert Chapman, special agent, in com- 

Sliance with the acts of September 30, 1850, and February 27, 1851. 
iote what is said below in connection with the Siler and MuUay rolls 
and the roll of 1835. This roll was not indexed by the Dawes Com- 
mission and was not used in the preparation of the final citizenship 
rolls. 

(r) Siler roll of 1851. — ^This was a census roll of the Cherokee 
Indians residing east of the Mississippi River. It was taken by 
Special Agent D. W. Siler. This was not indexed by the commission 
and was not used in the making of the final citizenship rolls. 

{s) Mvllay roll of 1848. — This roll was made by Special Agent 
J. C. Mullay, under the act of Congress of July 29, 1848 (9 Stat., 
264). It was a roll of Eastern Cherokee Indians. My notes do not 
show whether or not it was indexed, but I understand that it was not. 

(t) Censvs roll of 1835. — This was a census roll of Cherokees re- 
siding within the limits of Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, and 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



PIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 149 

Georgia in the year 1835. It was probably made before the removal 
of any portion of the tribe to Indian Territory. It was not an 
indexed roll. 

I desire to call particular attention to the rolls made in 1836, 
1848, 1851, and 1852, mentioned above. They were entitled to care- 
ful consideration and should have been used freely by the commis- 
sion. Their importance is due to the fact that the Cherokee Nation, 
by section 3 of an act approved December 8, 1886 (Cherokee Law 
fiook of 1884-1886, pp. 49, 52), impliedly confirmed said rolls by 
providing that persons applying for citizenship in the Cherokee 
Nation before a commission which was created oy said act should 
show themselves to be descendants of persons whose names appeared 
thereon. My field notes relating to the original Cherokee rolls are 
inclosed as Exhibit E. 

(u) Dockets. — ^There were a number of court dockets in the pos- 
session of the commission. Nearly all of these were indexed. 

CREEK ROLLS. 

I did not have an opportunity to examine the Creek rolls in the 
possession of the commission. I do know, however, from the adjudi- 
cation of many cases that applicants for enrollment as citizens of the 
Creek Nation were denied, on jurisdictional grounds, by reason of 
said act of May 31, 1900 (31 Stat., 221), the restrictive features of 
which have been referred to in a previous connection. 

4. Unproved decrees and judgements of the United States court upon 
which the CommiMion to the Five Civilized Tribes hosed its decisions 
and reports in Cherokee and in Creek citizenship cases, — Under the 
act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 321), the right to appeal was given 
from the decisions of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
to the United States courts and the decisions of the latter were to 
be final. All, or nearly all, of such decisions were rendered by the 
United States courts prior to 1899. Subsequent to such decisions 
and throughout the remainder of the enrollment work the Com- 
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes, in forwarding Cherokee and 
Creek citizenship cases, would report as to whether the applicants 
were granted or denied enrollment by said courts, and whenever 
court action had been taken in any particular case the decision of 
the commission would be predicated thereon. During all of this time 
the department supposed that the reportsS and decisions of the com- 
mission, as well as its own adjudication of such cases, were based 
upon authentic records, but such was not always the fact. Late in 
the enrollment work it was discovered by the department that many 
of the original decrees and judgments rendered by the United States 
court for the Northern Distinct of Indian Territory had beerl lost 
and that no official record of such decrees and judgment^< had ever 
been kept. This state of affairs was brought to the attention of the 
department in the case of Allen W. Ralston et al. (I. T. D., 12,880- 
1906). In that case it was reported by the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes that an application was made to the Commission 
to the Five Civilized Tribes, under the act of June 10, 189f) (29 Stat., 
321), for the admission to citizenship of the applicants; that said 
commission granted the application, hut that upon appeal from the 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



150 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

decision of the commission to the United States court in the Indian 
Territory the decision of the commission was reversed by said court 
and the application denied. In another report it was shown that 
the decree of the court was lost and that there was no official reconl 
or proof of such decree, except a press copy of a paper supposed to 
be the decree of the court, which copy was kept in a large book in the 
custody of the Dawes Commission. This supposed decree was un- 
signed and not of such a character as to be properly admissible in 
evidence. The reason for this condition of affairs is found in the 
testimony of Mr. Philip B. Hopkins, formerly an officer of the Dawes 
Commission. Mr. Hopkins's testimony, as set forth in the record in 
the Ralston case concerning the decrees and judgments of the United 
States courts, is as follows : ^ 

Under the act of June 10, 1896, authorizing an appeal from the decision of 
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes to the United States court In the 
Indian Territory, no provisions were made for certified copies of the decrees 
of the court to said commission. During the fall or early winter of 1897, I 
had numerous conversations with Hon. William N. Springer, judge of the 
United States court for the Northern District of Indian Territory, as then 
constituted, looking to some arrangement whereby the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes could be supplied with copies of his decisions and decrees. 
There being no funds available for usa by the clerk of said court for the 
making of such copies, it was suggested by Judge Springer that he, personaUy, 
or his secretary and stenographer, under his direction, should turn over to me 
all decisions and decrees In citizenship cases as soon as rendered, in order 
that I might make for the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, as their 
clerk and representative, letter-press copies of such decisions and decrees. 
This suggestion of Judge Springer's was agreed to by the members of said 
commission, and I, personally, received from Judge Springer or his clerk, 
Will S. Foars, the original decisions and deereas, a letter-press copy of which 
appears in this book.- I personally copied such decisions and decrees in this 
book and Indexed all of them in my own handwriting, with the exception, 
posslbily, of the last half dozen decisions. 

* * * * * « « 

Q. Mr. Hopkins, do you know If It was the custom or practice of the court 
t*t that time to enter decrees in the citizenship cases In a book or record such 
as decrees are usually entered in? — A. No; the decrees and decisions of the 
court were not recorded either at that time or for several years afterwards. 
The reason given by the clerk being that he had no funds out of which he 
could pay for doing such work, and I doubt very much if they ever wera 
copied. For two or three years I know personally that the papers, including 
the judgments and decrees in such castas, were piled ui)on an oi>en desk in the 
main office of the clerk of the court. The only docket of any kind relating 
to the cases In the office of the clerk of the court for two or three years 
following the decision in the case, to my personal knowledge, was the judge's 
bench docket. 

4c « * * * * * 

Q. Was it the custom to keep the decrees with these files, or was it the 
custom to keep the d(?crees sei)arate from the other files? — A. At the time I 
copie<^ these decrees the Dawes Commission was not In possession of tlie court 
files. Some year or two later, perhaps longer, when it was found that no 
record had been made by the United States court, and that it was the source 
of a great deal of annoyance to ol>tain papers in any particular case from 
the clerk of the court, for the reason that they had not been kept In good 
condition, the clerk of the court permitting the Dawes Commission to remova 
all the i)apers relating to citizenship cases on appeal to the vaults of the 
Dawes Commission, and they were arranged to the case of tha docket and 
filed away in the Dawes Commission. It was found at that time that in a great 
many Instances the d(»creos of the <H)nrt were missing from their places. 

Bein^ familiar with the re<.^ord of the Ralston case, I determined 
to ascertain for myself whether the reports and decisions of the 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZEp TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 151 

Dawes Commission were based upon unsigned decrees and judg- 
ments of the court. I was taken to one of the vaults of the Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes where the press copy book 
containing the copies of the supposed decrees of the United States 
court was kept. Upon inspection of this book I found a number of 
copies of papers, which were evidently drawn up for the signature 
of the judge, but which were unsigned. Although I made a careful 
examination of the book, I was unable to find any copy bearing the 
signature of the judge. 

The record in the Kalston case was forwarded by the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes October 4, 1905, to the Indian Office* 
From there it was sent, July 24, 1906, with the recommendation that 
the commissioner's decision be reversed and the applicants enrolled* 
The case was not reached by the department in the course of regular 
examination until February, 1907. On the 15th of that month the 
department rendered a decision concurring in the recommendation of 
the Indian Office and enrolling the applicants. 

Thus a serious defect was discovered in the proceedings affecting 
this class of enrollment cases, but the discovery came too late to be 
of any value in the enrollment work. Nor is this all. A few days 
later, to wit, February 19, 1907, the decision of the Attorney General 
of February 19, 1907, was rendered. In the haste which was made 
to apply said opinion, it was construed to affect not only the specific 
Choctaw and Cnicakasaw cases mentioned therein, but also numerous 
eases in the Cherokee and Creek Nations. The result was that cer- 
tain persons who had theretofore been enrolled were stricken off 
hurriedly, upon the supposition that an adverse decision was ren- 
dered as to them by the United States court for the Northern District 
of Indian Territory. Others having analogous cases, but who had 
not as yet been placed upon the final rolls, were denied enrollment in 
the original decisions based on the same grounds. 

5. Census card records in the office of the Commhsioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes. — The Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes prepared a card index of citizenship cases. The information 
appearing upon these cards was obtained from various sources. 
Sometimes it was noted upon the card directly from the statements 
of the applicants, while in other cases it was gleaned from the type- 
written records. Ordinarily there will be found upon a card the 
names of the persons comprising a family. The cards consist of 
three classes: 

1. " Straight " cards, upon which were listed those persons having 
tribal enrollment, and having a prima facie right to enrollment, ana 
a^inst whom no protest was made by the representative of the 
tribes. 

2. " Doubtful " cards, on which were placed the names of persons 
whose cases were protested by the representatives of the tribe, or 
where deemed doubtful because of some defect or defects in the show- 
ing, for example, nonresidence, failure to prove Indian blood, etc. 

3. " R " cards, upon which were listed the names of persons who 
either made no claim to tribal enrollment, or could make no showing 
to tribal recognition and right to enrollment. Generally speaking, 
the people who were listed on these cards were prima facie not en- 
titled to enrollment. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



152 FIVE CIVIL.IZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

The letter " R " stood primarily for " rejected "; but in the course 
of a very short time this list was made to include cards where re- 
jections had not occurred. Probably this series, in its inception, was 
based upon the field decision of Commissioner McKennon, who, after 
a brief examination, immediately rendered a decision which was a 
mere memorandum of action, being as follows : " Enrollment refused." 

Some of the persons whose names were listed upon " D " (doubt- 
ful) and " R " (rejected) cards were afterwards found entitled to 
enrollment, and when decisions were rendered in their favor, their 
names were transferred to straight cards. Proper notation was 
placed upon such •* D " and " R cards, showing what disposition 
was made of the cases, and the number of the straight card to which 
their names were then transferred. Thus, it may occur in a number 
of cases that there were two cards for one name, but not in the same 
series. 

As the cards are arranged to-day, it will be found that there are 
separate boxes for straight cards, the " D " cards, and the" R " cards. 
To represent the Choctaw cases there are approximately 6,084 
straight cards, 1,009' " D " cards, and 756 " R " cards. 

A system of cards was also used to represent the Mississippi Choc- 
taw cases. I think that there were two series of these cards, one 
for admitted cases and one for rejected cases. 

There was a class of cases known as '' memorandum cases." I 
understand that these cases were kept separate in the Cherokee and 
Creek Nations. Thev were so classified because, while under the 
act of May 31, 1900, the commission was forbidden to receive or make 
application for the enrollment of any person whose name was not 
upon the tribal rolls, or who had not been admitted to enrollment by 
the tribal authorities; the department required a memorandum to be 
made in order that its approval of the action of the commission 
might be based upon some aefinite information. 

From the foregoing it will be readily seen that the records of the 
Dawes Commission are in such a condition that it can be immedi- 
ately ascertained what action was taken in any particular case, and 
the pertinent facts connected therewith. 

In addition such cards show where the records in the case can be 
found, as well as all action taken thereon both by the commission 
and by the department. 

C. Statistics gathered from the records of the Commissioner to the 
Fire Cirilized Tnhes, 

(a) Choctaw and Chickasaw cases (number of applicants shown) : 

Nimib(»r i/f grunted Choctaw enrolluient c«ses 5,320 

Xiinilun- of persons enrolled as Choctrava !)y blood and 

intelniarri.-'L'e --- 17, SOO 

Number <»f <•H^es refnseil 1.750 

Nnjnl)er of nernons refnsed as Cboctaws by blood and 

iiitcnnarria^e 5,201 

Total ntuiiber of cases 7,070 

Total nun>ber of persons who were ^ii)plicants for enrollment 

as Choctaws by blooil and intermarrla^re 23,100 

(This dr.es not iiiclnde minor and new-born Choctaws 
under acts of Mar. X 1005. and Apr. 20, 1000, and Is 
estimated as nearly as may be withont actual count.) 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 153 

(a) Choctaw and Chickasaw cases — Continued. 

Number of granted Chickasaw enrollment cases l.SOO 

Number of persons enrolletl as Chlckasaws by blood and 

Intermarriage 5, 707 

Number of cases refused 500 

Number of persons refused as Chickasaws by blood and 

Intermarriage 1, 793 

Total number of cases 2,300 

Total number of persons who were applicants for enrollment 

as Chickasjiws by blood and intermarriage 7,500 

(This does not include new-born and minor Chickasaws 
under acts of Mar. 3, 1905, and Apr. 26, 1906, and is 
estimated as nearly as may be without actual count as to 
number of cases.) 

(h) Total number of Choctaws and Chickasaws by blood and inter- 
marriage, including minors and excluding Mississippi Choctaws: 
Number of Choctaws by blood, enrolled under acts of * 

June 28, 1898, and July 1. 1902 16,227 

Number of Choctaws by blood enrolled under act of 

March 3. 1905 1,588 

Number of Choctaws by bloo<l enrolled under act of 

April 26, 1906 956 

Total number of Choctaws by blood of all classes 18,766 

Number of Choctaws Iry intermarriage 1,672 

Total number of Choctaws 20.438 

Number of Chickasaws by blood, enrolled under acts of 

June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902 5.059 

Number of Chickasaws by blood, enrolled under net of 

March 3, 190.5 578 

Number of Chickasaws bv blood, enrolled under act of 

April 26, 1906 331 

Total number of enrolled Chickasaws by blood of all 

classes 5.968 

Number of Chickasaws by intermarriage 648 

Total number of Chickasaws 6,616 

(c) Choctaw freedmen: 

Number of Choctaw freedmen enrolled under acts of June 

28. 1898. and July 1, 1902 5,546 

Number of Choctaw freedmen enrolled under act of April 

26, 1906 473 

Total number of enrolled Choctaw freedmen 6,019 

(d) Chickasaw freedmen: 

Total number of enrolled Chickasaw freedmen 4,853 

(e) Mississippi Choctaws: 

Number of identified Mississippi Choctaws 2,534 

Number of enrolled Mississippi Chectaws 1,445 

Number of MLsslssippi Choctaws enrolled under act of March 3,1905_ 11 

Number of Mississippi Choctaws enrolled under act of April 26, 

1906 187 

(/) Total number of cases of different kinds (number of applicants not 
showp) : 
Approximate number of cases of Choctaws by blood and intermar- 
riage, excluding newborns and minors 7,070 

Approximate number of cases of Chickasaws by blood and inter- 
marriage, excluding newborns and minors 2,300 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



154 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

(/) Total number of cases of different kinds — Continued. 

Approximate number of granted Choctaw freedmen cases 1, 500 

Approximate numl)er of refused Choctaw freedmen cases 164 

Approximate total number of Choctaw freedmen cases, 

excluding minors 1,664 

Approximate number of granted Chickasaw freedmen cases.. 1,446 
Approximate number of refused Chickasaw /reedmen cases__ 150 

Total approximate number of Chickasaw freedmen cases 1, 506 

Approximate number of granted Mississippi Choctaw cases.. 916 
Approximate number of refused Mississippi Choctaw cases.. 6, 560 

Total approximate number of Mississippi Choctaw cases 7, 476 

7. Percentage of rejected Choctaw cases in which the heads of 
fomAlies claimed one- quarter or more Choctaw hlood, — Inasmuch as 
the degree of Indian blood alleged was noted upon the census cards 
for eadi member of the family recorded thereon, I thought it might 
prove of interest and perhaps of value to ascertain what percentage 
of the rejected cases embraced persons who alleged an appreciable 
degree of Choctaw blood. I adopted the fraction of one- fourth as 
the standard, because persons possessing that degree of blood are as a 
general rule obviously and visibly Indians. The quantum of blood 
alleged for heads of families on 52 rejected cards, taken consecutively, 
appears as follows: 

Heads of families alleging one thirty-second 

Heads of families alleging three sixty-fourths 1 

Heads of families alleging one-sixteenth 24 

Heads of families alleging three thirty-seconds 2 

Heads of families alleging one-eighth 12 

Heads of families alleging three-sixteenths 1 

Heads of families alleging one-fourth 1 

Heads of families alleging three-fourths 1 

Heads of families alleging three-fourths 1 

Recapitulating, out of a total of 52 there are found to be only three 
heads of families who allege one-fourth or more Indian blood. The 
percentage of such rejected ujjplicants would be a little under 6 
per cent. 

8. Percentage of Mhsfssippi (^hortaxc cases involving pei'sons of 
mixed blood. — Mississippi Choctaw cards sometimes show one head 
of a family identified and the other rejected, both alleging full 
blood. Sometimes one head of a family was identified as a full 
blood and the (»ther head and the children were denied. The card 
of Calvin McMillan (M. C. R. 4215) shows an instance where one 
i)arent wiis identified, and one parent denied together with the chil- 
dren. Here the wife (Mollie McMillan) was the only member of 
the family identified, notwithstanding there .were 11 members, 
all of whom alleged that they wore full-blood Choctaw Indians. 
This statement should be considered in connection with what I have 
said in a previous connection relative to the failure of the Commis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes to enroll the children of enrolled 
Mississippi Choctaws under the act of April 26, 1906. (34 Stat., 137.) 

In the adjudication of Mississippi Choctaw claims, two' classes of 
cases were presented. The first class embraced those persons who 
claimed descent from Indians who were entitled to the benefits of 
article 14 of the treatv of September 27. 1830. (7 Stat., 333.) There 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 155 

were many applicants of this class, but very few who were capable 
of establishing their claims, the character of the proof required being 
such that only people of education and means would be likely to 
preserve the necessary family records, or have sufficient knowledge 
of history to build up complete cases. 

The second class of Mississippi Choctaws were full-blood Indians. 
These people were identified as Mississippi Choctaws, by virtue 
of the rule of evidence prescribed in section 41 of the act of July 
31 , 1002. (32 Stat., 641.) By inspection of their census cards, I found 
that^ as a general rule, these Mississippi Choctaws were included in 
families, all of whom were full-blood Indians. Out of a total of 36 
Mississippi Choctaw cards, I found that where one of the heads of 
the family was identified as a full-blood Mississippi Choctaw all 
of the children were so identified in 29 cases, and that in the other 
seven cases the children were mixed-blood Indians. The proportion 
of full -blood cases would therefore be to the whole number of cases 
as 29 to 36, or about 80 per cent. This would mean that, if the 
mixed-blood children of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws are to be ac- 
cx>rded any rights whatever, either at the expense of the Choctaw 
Nation or of the [Tnited States, only about 20 per cent of the en- 
rolled Mississippi Choctaw cases would have to be taken up again; 
but it would not amount even to 20 per cent, because a considerable 
number of such cases were disposed of under the act of April 26, 
1906 (34 Stat., 137), as explained above. Stating the proposition 
further, there were only about 1,445 Mississippi Choctaws who were 
finalh' enrolled, who must have been included within 300 to 500 cases. 
Therefore, there would not be more than 20 per cent of that number, 
or from ^0 to 100 cases, of mixed-blood children. But there would not 
be eveji this number, inasmuch as 187 newborn Mississippi Choctaws, 
embraced, probablv, in 30 to 35 families, have already been enrolled 
under said act of April 26, 1906. 

9. Pr^aetice of the Dawes Commission respecting applications for 
enrollment, — From the outlet applications have played a very impor- 
tant part in enrollment work. I have referred to this fact hereto- 
fore in connection with the act of June 28, 1898, as well as subsequent 
acts. In view of the fact that the persons to be enrolled were wards 
of the Government, some of whom were burdened with minority, 
unsound mind, and other legal disabilities, it would seem that the 
burden of making application should never have been placed upon 
the Indians, either by act of Congress or by administrative regula- 
tion. Provisions were made in various statutes .which were con- 
strued to require applications to be made within a limited time. Strict 
construction of the rule relating to applications required personal 
appearance, at least of the head of the family. In tlie course of the 
enrollment work, however, people would contend from time to time 
that they had filed applications. Many such persons had, in fact, 
written letters to the commission and to the department and. not 
knowing departmental procedure thoroughly, to otlier persons — for 
example, to the Indian agent. I have even been informed by the 
officials of the United States court that people came frequently to 
them to make application. The question arose, therefore, as to what 
constituted an application within the meaning of the term as used in 
the law relating to enrollment. The index prepared by the Dawes 
Commission of persons who had made applications was confined to 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



156 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

those persons who had made formal application, either in person or 
through some member of the family who appeared in person before 
some representative of the commission. 

I am informed that when persons claimed to have made applica- 
tion by letter the commission caused an examination to be made of 
the in^ex of letters received in order to test the accuracy of the claim. 
During the course of the enrollment work letters were frequently 
received by the department in which persons claimed to be entitled 
to enrollment. Sometimes their claims were clearly indicated as to 
what persons they thought were entitled. At other times their state- 
ments were vague and uncertain and disclosed only that there was a 
member of the family for whom enrollment was desired. These let- 
ters were " referred to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes 
for appropriate action." Upon receipt of such letters the commis- 
sion exanuned its records to ascertain whether or not there w^as an 
existing application of record, but did not treat such letters as appli- 
cations unless followed up by further communication or evidence. 
During the years 1904, 1905, and 1906 several letters were written by 
the department containing important instructions to the Commission 
to the Five Civilized Tribes designed to make the requirements 
regarding applications as reasonable as possible; but these instruc- 
tions, as will be noted, did not issue until after the time limits pre- 
scribed in the Choctaw and Chickasaw agreement and the Cherokee 
agreement for the respective application?;. I have references to these 
cases and will cite them to you if desired. 

In illustration of the commission's attitude, however, I wish to 
bring to your attention the Choctaw case of Isaac Laflore et al. 
There the principal applicant and all or nearly all the m^ibers of 
his family were full-blood Indians. The commission rendered a 
decision adverse to the applicant, on the ground that the applications 
were not made within the time prescribed by law, to wit, prior to 
December 25, 1902. Upon reading the evidence, the department 
found that, as a matter of fact, the commission sent a deputy sheriflf 
to the home of the applicants a few days nrior to the expiration of 
the time limit, and that he found the heaa of the family unable to 
leave home and go before the Dawes Commission because of sick- 
ness. Under the circumstances the department held, in substance, 
that the action of the commission in sending the deputy sheriff to 
the home of the applicants was in itself a step looking to their en- 
rollment, and that inasmuch as proceedings to that end had thus 
been instituted within the time allowed the applicants should be 
enrolled, it being considered immaterial whether such proceedings 
were instituted by the applicants or by the commission, so long as 
the commission had knowledge of the case and had actually taken 
some steps in connection with it in due time. This action was taken 
by the department August 5, 1905, more than a year and a half after 
the expiration of the time limit, during which time the commission 
was evidently governed by the narrow view of the law. A further 
question arose at a late day in the enrollment work as to what con- 
stituted an application. As was shown in the early part of this 
report, nearly 75,000 people, including many recognized and enrolled 
citizens, made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized 
Tribes in 1896. These applications remained in the custody of the 
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes. Did such applications 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



• FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 157 

come within the purview of the words as used in the agreements 
with the various tribes? This question arose in connection with the 
case of Joe and Dillard Perry. Several opinions were written in 
this case. In the first, dated February 21, 1905, the Assistant At- 
torney General held that the applicants were entitled to enrollment. 
At that time their names were borne upon the roll of Chickasaw 
freedmen, and the petition was for transfer to the roll of citizens 
by blood of the Chickasaw Nation. Subsequently, upon motion for 
review, it was made to appear that no application for the enrollment 
of said persons as citizens bv blood haa been made within the time 
fixed by section 34 of the Choctaw and Chickasaw agreement. Ac- 
cordingly, under date of November 11, 1905, the Assistant Attorney 
General held that their names could not be transferred from the 
freedmen roll to the roll of Chickasaws by blood. In said opinion 
the following language was used : 

In the present case it does not appear that any application or assertion of 
right of these applicants for enrollment as citizens by blood was ever made 
until August, 1903, after December 24, 1902. // such was made under the act 
of 1896, or at any time prior to and including December 2.ff, 1902, the record 
heforc me is incomplete. This opinion is based solely on the fact that no ri^t 
to enrollment of these applications as citizens by blood was asserted until after 
December 24, 1C02. ( Underscoring supplied. ) 

It will be observed that this opinion was based, in part, upon the 
assumption that there was no application filed under the act of June 
10, 1896. As was subsequently shown, there was such an application 
on file with the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes at the time 
the opinion was written. Owing to this fact, a motion for review was 
filed June 2, 1906, on behalf of the applications. This motion was 
referred to the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes for report. 
The report called for was rendered June 26, 1906, and showed that as 
early as 1896 an application was made to the Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of Joe and Dillard Perry, 
as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation. Said report was re- 
ferred to the Assistant Attorney General for the Interior Depart- 
ment for opinion. The latter, on September 28, 1906, held that the 
applicants were entitled to enrollment, in view of the fact that their 
application was made in 1896. Accordingly, the former action ad- 
verse to them was rescinded, and they were enrolled as citizens by 
blood. 

After the motion for review was filed in the Perry case, the depart- 
ment directed the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes to re- 
port in all cases whether application was made under the act of June 
10, 1896, where the fact of such application, if material, was in issue. 

As you will observe, these important instructions were issued about 
three years and a half after the expiration of the time limit for the 
receipt of applications under the said act of July 1, 1902. It is 
needless to say that all of the work performed during that period 
should have been transacted under a correct, rather than an imper- 
fect, construction of the law. 

The practice of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes is 
also shown by his action in the Chickasaw case of J. W. F. Howard 
(I. T. D. 5508-07). On May 29, 1905, the chairman of the commis- 
sion advised Mr. Howard as follows : 

In reply to your letter you are advised that It appears from our records that 
you were an applicant to this commission in 1896 for citizenship in ^AWMp 



158 FIVE CIVililZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. • 

saw Nation, and your application was denied by the commisaion and that an 
appeal was taken to the United States Court for the Southern District of the 
Indian Territory at Ardmore, but it does not appear from our records that any 
action was taken In this case by said court 

You are further advised that it does not appear from our records that you 
have since that time made application to this commission for enrollment under 
the act of Congress of June 28, 1898, and under the provision of the act of Con- 
gress approved July 1, 1902, the commission is now without authority to re- 
ceive or consider such an application in your behalf. 

This letter constituted a very important action in the case^ in that 
it amounted to an adjudication on the part of the commission of a 
material question. Notwithstanding this was true, the name of the 
chairman of the commission was signed in a handwriting entirely 
different from that of the well-known writing of Mr. Tams Bixby; 
nor was there anything connected with the letter to show that Mr. 
Bixby had authorized or passed upon it in any way. 

10, Field itujestigation in the h5 district Iiidian agencies in eastern 
Oklahcyfna, — My examination of the records in the office of the Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes was made in order to obtain 
all the information possible coiicerning the w^ork of enrollment and 
to ascertain what foundation there would be to build on in case 
further enrollment work should be deemed advisable; but even at 
Muskogee I found that I was not near enough to actual conditions 
and that I was not coming in contact with the people I desired to 
reach. In planning how best to accomplish my purpose I decided to 
visit the office of each of the district Indian agencies in eastern Okla- 
homa. As there were 15 such offices I felt reasonably certain that 
I would be able to secure information from a sufficient number of the 
local agents to be fairly well informed concerning the situation as a 
whole. I arranged an itinerary and requested the district agents 
to send out word through their interpreters, Indian policemen, etc., 
of my proposed coming and to make arrangements to enable me to 
come into contact with as many persons as possible. I thought it well, 
however, to instruct them not to give notice of my itinerary to the 
press, for I knew that I would be unable, in the one or two days 
at my disposal at each office, to meet and examine all of the persons 
who might be thus induced to try to see me. The most that I could 
hope for was to get a general idea of the situation. 

At the various appointments I met and examined all persons who 
desired to see me concerning matters of enrollment, taking due care 
to inform them beforehand that my visit was not the result of any 
change in the law, and that thev were not to understand that they 
were making application to me for enrollment I explained to them 
instead that I came as the representative of the Secretary of the 
Interior in order that he might obtain information directly concern- 
ing them. I encouraged the people to be frank in their statements, 
but informed them that whatever they said would be made a matter 
of record and could be compared at any time with former statements 
made by such of them as nad theretofore been heard by the com- 
mission. A stenographer accompanied me and made a report of all 
statements J subsequently he furnished me with a tvpewritten tran- 
script of his notes, copy of which is inclosed as Exhibit F. In order 
that we might not be compelled to rely alone upon the statements 
of the applicants, I also carried with me a camera, furnished bv the 
Geological Survey, and secured pictures, inclosed as Exhibit (j, of 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 159 

many of the persons who appeared before me. This was not possible, 
however, in all places, for the examinations were conducted upon 
several occasions until late in the evening. Throug;h the investiga- 
tion in this way my information concerning a considerable number 
of applicants came from the people themselves. I was careful to 
have it understood beforehand that no attorney nor agent would be 
allowed to be present. I did this in order that the claimants would be 
left free to answer entirely according to their own ideas and the 
promptings of their own minds. I did not, however, wish to avoid 
meeting attorneys and agents, and whenever possible met and con- 
versed with them, as with other individuals, noting in fact that they 
were able to throw a great deal of light upon the situation. The 
district Indian agents proved another source of much value. Thev 
have now been in the field sufficiently long to be acquainted with 
many Indians, through whom they have heard of deserving and 
equitable cases of persons omitted from the rolls. These men, with 
the aid of the assistant agents, the Indian policemen, and the Indian 
interpreters, brought to my attention a considerable number of cases 
of people who, for various reasons, were unable to meet me, and whose 
enrolLment would perhaps never be accomplished under any circum- 
stances if they were left to take th6 initiative unaided bv the Govern- 
ment. Another source of information which proved^ particularly 
valuable was the tribal officials and public men who are members of 
the Indian nations. These men have a widespread acquaintance, and 
when interviewed did not hesitate to give me freely the information 
at their disposal. I also conferred with a number of men in public 
life, such as superintendents of Indian schools, heads of public institu- 
tions, and the like. From all of these I gathered information relating 
to a large number of persor^s. It will, of course, be impossible for me 
to give a detailed statement concerning each case; but, instead, I will 
coimne myself to a statement of my impi-chsions of the situation taken 
as a whole and describe by classes the persons v/hose cases deserve 
special consideration. 

I was strongly impressed with the fact that as a general rule 
persons having the most meritorious cases were the least able to take 
the necessary steps to secure their enrollment. I found that such 
persons were frequently unable to undergo* the expense of traveling 
by rail, even a few miles, in order to have their cases investigated. 
Distance, though shorty was an impassable barrier between them and 
their rights, and when it came to leaving their homes and incurring 
hotel exj>enses, even for a short time, the impossibility of their doing 
anvthing for themselves was still more certain. This condition of 
aflfairs can not be readily appreciated from Washington, or even from 
Muskogee, but when one is in the field going from place to place 
he can fell keenly that persons laboring under extreme poverty, 
ignorance, ill health, or other disabilities must be assisted by tne 
Government of the United States through affirmative action on its 
part if their cases are to be thoroughly investigated. To many such 
persons a few dollars in the hand means more than the vague and 
shadowy prospect of an allotment worth thousands of dollars to be 
received some time in the indefinite future. 

Another matter which I noted particularly was the attitude of the 
Indian people toward the question. While they take a conservative 
view of the matter and are anxious to avoid a promiscuous investiga- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



160 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

tion as to all kinds of claimants, they are very liberal in spirit toward 
those persons in whose cases real equities exist. I believe it may be 
said without danger of successful contradiction that the Indian people 
as a whole are extremely anxious and willing that the cases of real 
merit should be relieved. In this connection I refer to the fact that 
I conferred freely whenever possible with Indian officials and with 
leading members of the tribes and as a rule obtained from each of 
them important information concerning a few equitable cases. 

This subject was touched upon by Gov. McCurtain in his last mes- 
sage to the council of the Choctaw Nation. Therein he brought to 
the attention of the council the fact that there were a number of 
equitable cases in the nation. I have not a copy of the governor's 
message before me, but as I remember it he estimated the number 
to be about 40. These cases, as I remember, were brought to the 
attention of the council for such action as it might think proper to 
take. I believe^ however, that it did not act upon the matter. 

I desire to explain the meaning of the term " equitable cases " as 
used by me in making inquiries of the Government and tribal officers 
and other persons relative to meritorious cases. The term was so 
used with reference to people who were plainly entitled to have their 
cases considered, but who through a variety of causes, such as acci- 
dent, inadvertence, mistake, failure to make application in due time, 
nonenrollment upon the tribal rolls, lack of intelligence, etc., failed 
to secure enrollment or whose cases were disposea of solely upon 
technical grounds. 

While 1 was unable to visit several of the district agencies in per- 
son, I made arrangements with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes to send men to such places in my stead. These men, under 
my instructions and pursuant with the general policy of the investi- 
gation, kept the appointments provided for in my itinerary and made 
careful examination of all cases coming within their knowledge. 
The statements obtained by them were reduced to typewriting, and 
copies are herewith as a part of Exhibit F. 

11. Classes of cases meriting furtlier consideration on equitable 

, grounds, 

(a) Pei-sons stricken from the approved rolls. 

1. Solely because they failed to appeal to the United States courts 
from adverse decisions of the Dawes Commission rendered under the 
act of June 10, 1896 (29. Stat, 321). 

2. Solely because they were denied enrollment upon appeal to the 
United States courts under said act of June 10, 1896. 

3. Solely because the favorable decisions awarded them by the 
United States courts were set aside and vacated in the blanket decision 
rendered in the so-called " test suit " of J. T. Riddle et al. Some of 
the persons embraced in this class relied for their enrollment wholly 
upon favorable decisions rendered by the United States courts, while 
others were in the possession of favorable judgments rendered both 
by the Dawes Commission and by said courts. As to the latter, 
there was no duty to transfer or appeal their cases to the citizenship 
court. See letter of March 4, 1907, copy of which is inclosed as 
Exhibit H, from the Attorney General to the President of the 
United States, which was forwarded March 5, 1907, ^th^Se^retary 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 161 

of the Interior, with instructions to treat it as an opinion, but which 
was received by said Secretary two days too late to be of any value 
in the enrollment work. 

4. Solely because denied enrollment by the citizenship court in 
specific judgments. 

In all cases coming within the four classes enumerated above, the 
names of the applicants were placed upon the final rolls and approved 
by the Secretary of the Interior, only after full hearings and careful 
adjudication upon their merits, and, with one or two exceptions, all 
were stricken irom the rolls merely upon jurisdictional grounds. 

(&) Persons who were denied enrollment for jurisdictional reasons 
during the closing weeks of the enrollment work. 

The applications of these persons were pending when the opinion 
of February 19, 1907, was rendered. Accordingly, their rights 
were disposed of in compliance, or supposed compliance, therewith, 
with the result that they never attained the status of enrolled citi- 
zens. Their cases were in all other respects analogous to those of 
members of the four classes enumerated above, and their rights were 
substantially the same. As to the former, some relief has been af- 
forded through the application of the opinion of the Supreme Court 
of the United States of November 30, 1908, in the case of John E. 
Goldsby v. James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior; but 
as to the latter, no relief is in sight, unless Congress shall see fit to 
grant remedial legislation. 

(c) Persons who were in every respect entitled to enrollment, but 
who, for administrative reasons and for no other, for example, delay, 
inadvertence, oversight, etc., failed to secure enrollment. 

Coming within this class are the 52 persons referred to in the 
report of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes of November 
15, 1907. Their right to enrollment, according to the class of citizens 
in which they claim membership, was perfect, and they would 
undoubtedly have been enrolled had there been a few days more 
within which to consider their claims. The records in their cases 
were complete; there was no testimony to be taken or proof educed. 
It simply remained for the Secretary of the Interior to give formal 
assent to their enrollment. Some of these people were reported by 
telegram of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 
4, 1907, to the Secretary of the Interior, but said telegram was not 
delivered by the telegraph company until the following day. Unfor- 
tunate as their plight may be, tneir situation is no worse than that of 
the persons who were stricken from the rolls and refused enrollment 
contrary to the said letter of March 4, 1907, from the Attorney Gen- 
eral to the President of the United States, which letter, as I have said, 
reached the Department of the Interior too late to be applied to the 
enrollment work. 

(d) Persons who are of undoubted right, but who failed to make 
application within the time set by law or who failed to furnish the 
required proof. 

My personal investigation brought to light a considerable number 
of cases of this kind. In fact, I believe that more persons fall within 
this class than within any other. General laws served well enough 
to accomplish the enrollment of all straight and regular cases, par- 
ticularly where the applicants w^ere able to render themselves sub- 
stantial assistance, but as to the persons falling within this class a 

69282—13 n n^f^nio 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



162 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

broiKJer and more ecjuitable jurisdiction should have been vested in 
the Secretarv of the Interior. Soine of the people to whom I refer in 
this connection were orphans for whom no one cared and in whom no 
one was interested. Minors were also frequently among these unfor- 
tunates, also the mentally incompetent, likewise the illiterate and the 
ignorant. Others lost their rights through sickness and physical 
inability to meet the requirements of the Dawes Commission, Still 
others, being illegitimate children, were compelled to rely upon their 
own resources. 

There was another factor which had a far-i^eachiug influence in 

{reventing the enrollment of many pei*sons who are undoubtedly 
ndian citizens. There was a faction Known as "Snakes/' composecl 
not of the members of one tribe alone, but of several, which was 
opposed to the laws lookin^r to the enrollment in severalty of the 
tribal lands. This faction included manv full-blood Indians. Its 
members were the least civilized of the l^'ive Civilized Tribes and 
least able to fight their own battles and to cope with the many pi'ob- 
lems resulting from ra])idly changing political conditions. They 
were taught by their leaders that the laws and agreements providing 
for enrollment and allotment were contrary to the ancient treaties of 
the Five Civilized Tribes and that it was only a question of time 
when the old treaties would be restored and everything that had been 
done under the new system would pass away. This doctrine was 
accepted eagerly by a considerable number of persons, and they stead- 
fastly refused iFor some time to take any steps in line with the pro- 
posed change of conditions. They adopted this policy not only on 
the part of themselves, but also on the part of their children and 
others, and it is said that in order to prevail in their opinions they 
even resorted to threats. AVliile hoj)ing and struggling for the impos- 
sible, many of these people honestly believed that the old treaties 
would he restored. Their position was doubtless taken in good 
faith; and even if the leaders were not all sincere, it needs no argu- 
ment to show that the children of such persons should not be made to 
suffer for the mistakes or the wrongdoing of their parents. 

(e) Persons who are entitled by undeniable residence and tribal 
affiliation, but who could not be heard upon the merits of their cases 
because the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes failed to identify 
their names on tribal rolls or records. 

In connection with these persons, there happened that which, in 
m}' judgment, should never l)e allowed to occur in connection with 
an Indian case, to wit, final advei'se adjudication without respect 
to the merits of the case, based solelv upon jurisdictional grounds. 
This was due to the act of May 31, 1900 (31 Stat, 221) , which limited 
the jurisdiction of the Dawes Commission to persons who had there- 
tofore been enrolled or admitted as members of the Indian tribes. 

(/) Offspring of Choctaw freedmen who were prevented from 
making application under the act of April 26, 190() (34 Stat., 137), 
because of the erroneous construction of the Commissioner to the Five 
Ci\ilized Tribes. 

I have discussed the rights of these freedmen in a prior connection 
in this report, and need not, therefore, take up the matter again. 

(r/) Persons born to enrolled Mississippi Choctaws entitled as 
minors to enrollment under the act of April 26, 1906. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 163 

The members of this class were not enrolled by the Comraissicmer 
to the Five Civilized Tribes, owing to the latter's misinterpretation 
of the law. 

Others similarly situated were subsequently enrolled, after the 
question was brought to the attention of the department. These 
persons would have been enrolled had there been time to go back 
and readjudicate their cases. 

(A) Persons who, bv reason of a defect in the wording of the act 
of April 26, 1906, although fully entitled, were not embraced in its 
terms. 

In this connection, I refer to the offspring of enrolled and recog- 
nized Indian citizens who died prior to the initial date set for en- 
rollment. Such parents would have been enrolled had they survived 
such day, but dving theretofore, their children could not be enrolled 
under the act oi April 26, 1906, because not born to persons who were 
alreadv eArolled, or whose enrollment cases were then pending. 

(i) l^ersons who, by reason of a defect in the act of March 3, 1905 
(33 Stat., 1048), were not enrolled thereunder, although fully entitled 
to enrollment. 

This defect was due to the fact that said act provided only for 
the enrollment of offspring of parents whose enrollment had already 
been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

(J) Creek freedmen barred by the first paragraph of section 3 of 
the said act of April 26, 1906, although such Freedmen would have 
been entitled to enrollment under the treaty of 1866, between the 
Creek Nation and the United States. 

(k) Cherokee freedmen who were barred by paragraph 2 of sec- 
tion 3 of the act of April 26, 1906, although they would have been 
entitled to enrollment prior to that act, in accordance with the terms 
of article 9 of the treaty of 1866, between the Cherokees and the 
United States. 

(/) Persons who, under technical construction of the laws and 
agreements, were denied enrollment by the department, notwith- 
standing that other persons were subsequently granted enrollment in 
parallel cases under a more liberal construction. 

(m) Persons of mixed Indian and negro blood who w^ere enrolled 
as freedmen, in the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Nations, did not 
suffer a property loss by reason thereof, owing to the fact that ^ch 
freedmen became citizens of the respective nations by adoption, 
acquiring therebv all the property rights of citizens by blood in re- 
spect to the final distribution of the land and money of said tribes. 

The Choctaw and Chickasaw. Nations, however, the matter presents 
a different aspect in that enrollment, as a freedman in said nations 
carried with it the right to only 40 acres of land and no share in 
the proceeds arising from the sale of the surplus, whereas each citizen 
by blood is entitled to 820 acres of land and to share in the distribu- 
ticMi of the lands and moneys of his tribe. 

Thus it will be seen that in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations 
it is a matter of much importance to the persons of mixed Indian 
and negro blood whethef tney be enrolled as citizens bv blood or as 
freedmen. The question is aNo of importance to the tribes at large, 
inasmuch as any increase in favor of such claimants will correspond- 
ingly diminish the portion to be distributed among the other citizens. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



164 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

The que,v,ti()n is also of importance to the United States. The 
Governnjent is materially concerned in its proper solution. This 
feature of the mattjer seemingly has been overlooked and I found no 
trace of any consideration of the subject from this standpoint. The 
interest of the United States is due to the fact that it must pay the • 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Xations for each allotment received by a 
Chickasaw freedman. To explain this situation I desire to refer vou 
to section 36 of the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 041), which author- 
izes the Court of Claims to determine tne controversy respecting the 
rolls of the Chickasaw freedmen in the Chickasaw Nation and the 
rights of such freedmen to the lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Nations under and all laws subsequently enacted by the Chickasaw 
legislature or by Congress. The right of appeal was also given to 
the Supreme Court of the United States and it was provided that, 
in the event it should be finally determined that said rreedmen were 
not adopted by the Chickasaw Nation, the lands to be allotted to 
them should be paid for by the United States and the proceeds di- 
vided between the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, as Uieir respec- 
tive interests might appear. 

Messrs. Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish secured contracts from 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, November fi, 1902, to represent 
them in the necessary suits concerning said freedmen. By the terms 
of these contracts, the attorneys were to receive from each nation 

per cent of the interest of said nation in whatever sum or sums of 
money might be received from the United States as compensation for 
the lands to be allotted to the Chickasaw freedmen. These contracts 
were approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Acting Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs on conditions, subsequently accepted, that 
in no event should the maximum compensation to be paid said attor- 
neys exceed the sum of $27,500, said compensation to be apportioned 
between and paid to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the 
proportion in which they might be entitled to share in any recovery 
obtained by them in the proposed suits. Thus it will be seen (1) that 
an increase in the number of Chickasaw freedmen might or might not 
increase the fee of said attorneys, a point which could not be settled 
in advance, and (2) that the larger the number of Chickasaw freed- 
men the more the United States would be required to pay to satisfy 
their claims. 

From my personal examination and observation of a considerable 
number of persons claiming to be of mixed Indian and negro blood 

1 found that, as a general rule, such persons were not obviously and 
visibly Indians, liiere were, however, a number of marked excep- 
tions. My examination was generally limited to the statements of 
the persons in interest, which of course I did not look upon as c(m- 
dusive proof of their rights, but, from their own statements, I was 
convinced that a considerable number were not entitled to enrollment. 
There were others whose statements, if true, would entitle them to 
enrollment, but, in such cases, it sometimes seemed to me extremely 
doubtful that they would ever be able to produce satisfactory evi- 
dence in support of their claims. There were still others who, I am 
thoroughly persuaded, are related by blood to recognized Indian citi- 
zens whose enrollment has been approved by the Secretary of the 
Interior. In fact, there are specific instances which can be cited where 
part of the members of a family have been enrolled as freedmen while 

Digitized by V^OOgie 



FIVE CIVILIZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 165 

others of no greater natural right have been enrolled as Indians by 
b]/)od. 

After investigating a considerable number of cases and comparing 
LiY information thus obtained with what I had theretofore learned 
ill the adjudication of Choctaw and Chickasaw cases, I am con- 
srrained to believe that the practice of the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes and its successor was, as a general rule, to place the 
names of all persons of mixed Indian and negro blood upon tne freed- 
men rolls without paying particular attention to the different classes 
of the persons affected by such action, and without an understanding 
of the laws and treaties bearing upon the subject. 

Pursuant to its general attitude the Commission to the Five Civi- 
lized Tribes prepared schedules containing the names of persons 
found by it to be entitled to enrollment as freedmen. These schedules 
frequently contained the names of persons of mixed negro and Indian 
hood, but there was nothing on the face of the schedule or the letter 
of transmittal, so far as I have been able to learn, disclosing the fact 
of Indian blood. These schedules, in the absence of protest upon the 
part of the nations in interest, were approved by the Secretary of the 
Interior or By his assistants. Thus, in a sense, the department ap- 
proved and sanctioned the attitude of the commission, but under the 
circumstances without any intention of passing adversely upon a 
question of legaHmportance affecting a large class of persons. 

The first instance of which I have been able to find any trace of 
where the matter received the direct and conscious attention of the 
department was in connection with the application of Joe an<l 
Dillard Perry for the transfer of their names from the freedmen 
rolls to the rolls of citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation. I 
have referred to this case before but in a different connection. The 
facts are that Joe and Dillard Perry were the minor children of a 
free woman of mixed n^ro and Indian blood by a father wlio was 
unquestionably a Chickasaw Indian, being enrolled and recognized 
by the tribal authorities as a citizen by blood. The Assistant xVt- 
t4 rney General for the department, to whom the case was referred, 
considered the rights of the applicants in connex^tion with the laws 
and treaties of the United States and found that, as " descendants " 
of a Chickasaw, they were entitled to enrollment as citizens by blood. 
This opinion was rendered February 21, 1905. 

Contrast this opinion with the practice of the Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes outlined above, and in connection with both 
please reconsider what I have said heretofore relative to that por- 
tion of the act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 187), with reference to 
the transfer of names from freedmen rolls to rolls of citizens by 
blood. 

Prior to the treaty of 1830 there were a number of persons of negro 
blood who were recognized citizens of the Choctaw Nation. This is 
clearly shown by the records of the Indian Office. These persons 
were citizens of the nation when the treaty of 1830 was entered into 
l)etwoen the Choctaw Nation and the United States and, pursuant to 
which the territorv known as the Clioctaw-Chickasaw country was 
conveyed to the Choctaw Nation "in fee simple to them and their 
descendants." Subsequently, when the Chickasaws acquired an in- 
terest by purchase in the country theretofore ceded to the Choctaws, 
proper provision was made to guarantee to the Chickasaws and their 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



166 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

descendants the interest so acquired. Following these treaties a^d 
in the interval preceding the emancipation of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw slaves by virtue of the treaty of 1866, the general rule 
was that, under the treaties and laws of the United States all de- 
scendants of the Choctaws and Chickasaws residing in the country 
were entitled to citizenship therein if bom to free parents. 

Slavery was an existing institution in the Choctaw and Chidkasaw 
Nations at the time of and prior to the treaties of 1830 and 1837. 
and the same general rule regarding the status of the offspring oi 
slaves se«med to have prevailed there as in the neighboring States. 
Out of the social system thus existing various conditions arose re- 
sulting in the following classes: 

1. Where one parent was an Indian citizen (male or female) and 
the other a noncitizen having the status of a free person. 

In such the offspring were entitled to enrollment regardless of the 
race of the noncitizen parent. 

2. Where one parent was an Indian citizen (male or female) and 
the other had the status of a slave. 

Here the rule seems to have been that the offspring would follow 
the mother; that is to say, if she were a slave her children would 
also be slaves, as was the rule generally in slave-holding States, but 
if the mother was an Indian citizen the children- would take her 
btatus regardless of the status of the father. 

Slaverv in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations was abolished by 
Article II of the treaty of April 28, 1866 (14 Stat., 769), between 
the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. There- 
&fter the old distinction between "bond and free" vanished and all 
had the status of free people, negroes 'tis well as Indians and whites. 
Following this change in tne law, the child of an Indian citizen would 
not be barred from enrollment simply because one of its parents was 
formerly a slave. Children thus born to free parents, following the 
emancipation, were as fully entitled to enrollment as children bom 
to such parents prior thereto. 

After slavery had been abolished, the negroes remained among 
Iheir former owners, and in the course of time there came to be three 
classes of persons of mixed negro and Indian blood residing in 
the Cho(*taw-Chickasaw countrv\ By compariscfn of these claims with 
the classes existing prior to emancipation the citizenship rights of 
such persons can be determined. The classes are as follows: 

1. Emancipated persons. 

2. The offspring of emancipated persons by negroes, whites, or 
other noncitizens. 

8. Offspring of emancipated persons by Indian citizens. 

If the right to be transferrea from the freedmen rolls to the rolls 
of citizens by blood of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations relates 
(nly to the \nembei-s of class 3; that is to say, to the offspring of 
emancipated persons by Indian citizens, the number of persons who 
could possibly be accorded the right of transfer would necessarily be 
considerably less than would at first seem, pai*ticularly as the number 
would be further diminished by reason of the impossibility, in many 
cases, to furnish satisfactory proof of Indian blood. 

My conclusion is that there are persons of this class who are enti- 
tled to enrollment as citizens by blood and that they have not had 
due opportunitv to prove their Vights, also that they have not been 

* '^ " * Digitized by VjOOQIC: 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 167 

accorded by law equal privileges with other persons having Indian 
blood. I wish particularly in this connection to call your attention 
to the pictures of Blanche Wilson and her niece and to the tastimony 
relating to them, copy of which is herewith. 

( n) Adopted and intermarried whites and their offspring claiming 
citizenship in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Not all mem- 
bers of this class are entitled to enrollment, but, on the other hand, 
(here are certain persons who failed to secure enrollment whose cases 
are in all substantial respects parallel to those of other pjersons whose 
enrollment has been approvea. This is due partly to jurisdictional 
leasons and partly to the hurry incident to the closing of the enroll- 
ment work at a fixed date. 

It was the custom of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for 
years prior to the treaties of 1830 and 1834 to add to their member- 
ship by admitting white persons, members of other Indian tribes, 
ana others, as appears from the records of the Indian Office and from 
various acts of their national councils passed from time to time 
bearing upon the adoption of and intermarriage with citizens. 
Former provision was made for such persons in Articles XXVI and 
XXXVIII of the treaty entered into April 28, 186G (14 Stat., 769, 
777, 778). Said articles read as follows: 

The rljfht bere given to Choctnws and Ohickaanwa. resiKvtlvely. shall extend 
to all persons who have become citizens by adoption or intennarrlape of either 
of said nations, or who may hereafter become sncb. 

Every white person who, havinj? married a Choctaw or (Miickasaw. resides 
In the wild Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation, or who has beiMi adopted by the 
leirislative anthoritles, is to be deeme<l a member of said nation, and shall be 
snbject to the laws of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations according to his 
domicile, and to prosecntlon and trial before their tribunals, and to punish- 
ment according to their laws in all resf>ects as though he was a native Choctaw 
or Chickasaw. 

It will be observed that these articles refer to two classes of per- 
sons: (1) Citizens by adoption and (2) citizens by intermarriage, but 
that no reference is made in either article to the descendants of 
such persons- nor is there anything in either to show that the cere- 
mony of marriage with noncitizens was to be performed in any 
particular manner or within any particular jurisdiction; nor is there 
anything to show that there was any intention at the date of said 
treaty to impose a special rule upon such persons not applicable to 
Indians by blood, restricting their right to marry noncitizen white 
persons and prescribing penalty for so doing. 

I have called attention to these features of said articles l)ecause of 
the doctrine which was adopte<l, in part at least, that the rights 
acquired by adopted and intermarried citizens were personal only, 
and that no right of citizenship accrued after the death of their 
Indian spouses to noncitizen white women with whom they might 
intermarry or to their offspring by such women. 

About 10 years after the treaty of 1800, the tril)es adopted a legis- 
lative policy designed to regulate marriages with noncitizens and 
to limit the acquisition of citizenship rights to such persons, to the 
exclusion of others who might sul^equently ho coimected with them 
through second marriages. 

By the act of November 9, 1875, relating to intermarriage, the 
Choctaw Nation provided in part as follows: 

5. Should any man or woman, a citizen of the Cnited States or of any 
forei(^i country, become a citizen of the Choctaw Nation b:C)jJj^g^^^ilirrC^@01C 



168 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

herein provided, nnd be left a widow or widower, he or she shall continue to 
enjoy the rights of citizenship; unless he or she shall marry a white ninn or 
woman or person, as the case may be, having no rights of Choctaw citizenship 
by blood; in that case all his or her rights acquired under the provisions of 
this act shall cease. 

This section, as you will note, makes no reference to the children 
reslilting from second marriages with noncitizens, but presumably 
reference to them was thought unnecessary under the circumstances. 
In connection with this section the Attorney General, in an opinion 
February 19, 1007, in the Kingsbury-Littlepage case, expressed the 
view that — 

It is dear that at least since 1875 the Choctaw Nation never intended that 
a white persons intermarrying into the tribe should have power to confer citlztMi- 
8liip upon his children by a subsequent marriage to other than a citizen by 
blood. The inforhial opinion of Attorney General Moody (of Feb. 24. 1006) 
unquestionably had reference to cases of this character. 

The Chickasaw Nation also legislated upon this subject. By act 
of October 19, 1876, as amended September 24, 1887, it was provided 
as follows: 

Sec. 3. Be it further enacted. That no marriage heretofore solemnized, or 
which may hereafter be solemnized, between a citizen of the T'nited States 
and a member of the Chicljasaw Nation, shall enable such citizen of the T:nited 
States to confer any right or privilege whatever in this nation, by again 
marrying another citizen of the Ignited States, or upon such other citizen of 
the United States or their issue. * ♦ ♦ 

This section is a repetition in substance if not in exact terms of 
the act of 1876, which before amendment read as follows: 

Be it further enacteiU That this act shall not be ccmsrtruecl so as to interfere 
with marriages solenmized i>rior to the treaty of 1866. and that it take eflPect 
and be in force from and after it iMisses. 

In the amended form the act also contains the following provision: 

Sko. 4. Be it further enacted. That all acts or parts of acts coming in con- 
flict with the provisions of this act are lierel)y rei>ealed, and that this act take 
otTect from and after its passage. 

Prefatory to what follows T desire to call to your attention two 
features of the Chickasaw act of 1870: It was aimed against the 
extension of citizenship rights through the marriage of an inter- 
married white citizen to a later husband or wife who was a " citizen 
of the United States,"" as well as against "their issue." Such lan- 
guage naturally challenges attention and invites inquiry as to whether 
the same effect would follow if the second marriage was entered into 
with a man or women already a citizen of the Choctaw or Chickasaw 
Nation by a former marriage or by adoption. I will also ask you 
to note the portions of said acts which have been underscored, show- 
ing that the act was not intended to affect marriages solemnized 
prior to the treaty of 1800, and that it was to take effect from and 
after its passage. 

Of course these acts rest solely upon the power of the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Nations to legislate concerning the subject, and, as 
they touch upon matters also covered by a treaty with the United 
States, to wit, said treat v of 1800, the most imi)ortnut question of 
all is whether the said tribal acts are in conflict with that treaty. 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 169 

In the adjudication of the cases of white persons it was doubt- 
less thought at first that it wouhl prove easy to apply a uniform 
rule, but this was a mistaken idea. Different cases presented differ- 
ent questions, and it soon became evident thai the principles ap- 
plicable to one case were not at all in point as to another. As has 
been stated, the adoption of citizens had its origin many years ago 
and the records show that in the very early history of the tribes 
foreigners were admitted to citizenship. This was notably true of 
missionaries, and it sometimes came to pass that there was not only 
one generation in adopted families, but two and even three genera- 
tions were embraced in such families. All of this occurred in early 
days, before anyone could be accused of ulterior motives in seeking 
citizenship. This was true of persons who joined the tribes as mis- 
sionaries, teachers, etc. 

The different phases of the question can best be seen by reference 
to the decision oi specific cases. I find that the United States Couft 
for the Central District of the Indian Territory, in the case of F. R. 
Robinson v. Choctaw Nation, wherein Robinson, a white inter- 
married citizen, married as his second wife a w hite noncitizen, held 
that the treaty made every white man who married a Choctaw or 
Chickasaw woman a citizen in all respects as though he were a 
native Choctaw or Chickasaw, and that, by virtue of the treaty of 
1866, there was no difference between a citizen by intermarriage 
and a native citizen: that all were to enjoy equally and alike the 
benefits of Choctaw citizenship as well as to share the bunlens. The 
court also held specifically (1) that his marriage to a white woman 
after the death of his Indian wife did not decitizenize him, and (2) 
that the offspring of such a marriage would be entitled to enroll- 
ment, inasmuch as children follow^ the citizenship of the father. 

The view of the United States court was not adopted, however, by 
the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court. The latter, in the case of 
E. H. Bounds et al r. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, wherein 
Bounds, a white intermarried Choctaw, his second wife a wiiite non- 
citizen, and their children were applicants for enrollment, held that 
Bounds was entitled, but that his wife and children were not. The 
right of Mr. Bounds was expressly based upon Article XXXVIII of 
the treaty of 1866. The court, referring to said Article XXXVIII 
of the treaty of 1866, said: 

The grant of the Government is to the Indians and their descendants and 
heirs, in apt and pointed language, in the patent and treaties before that. If 
this treaty designed to give intermarried, not only white persons and adopted 
white persons, but also their purely white descendants, any rights, why did it 
not declare, then, in 1S66 in that treaty tliat such further rights as claimed 
now were conferred by adding the words " their heirs and descendants"? 

The question was presented to the Department of the Interior in 
the regular course of the enrollment work in the case of Mary Eliza- 
beth Martin. There it w^as held by the Secretary of the Interior, 
approving the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General of March 24. 
1905, that the applicant was entitled to enrollment. The record 
shows that in her case she was born about 1891 to AValker Martin 
and Sallie Moore Martin, his wife, both being white intermarried 
citizens, the father having previously married Bettie Munroe, a 
Choctaw, and the mother having previously married Nelson Munroe. 
a Chickasaw. Both' Indian spouses died prior to the mai'riage of 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



170 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

the applicant's parents. The Assistant Attorney General discussed 
the case at considerable length, quoting the decision of both of the 
courts, referred to above, but accepting the view announced by the 
United States court *in the Robinson case, holding that Mary Eliza- 
beth Martin was born to the allegiance of her father and that it was 
unnecessarv to write the word "descendants'^ in said Article 
XXXVIII of the treaty of 1866. 

The question was brought to the attention of };he President, who 
called upon the Attorney General for a report thereon. The latter, 
in a letter dated February 24, 1906, advised the President that a 
memorandum had been prepared in his office expressing the view that 
the fair and reasonable construction of the treaty of 1866 was that a 
white person by marriage with an Indian acquired only personally 
the rights and privileges of citizens by blood and not the capacity to 
confer citizenship upon others, adding that he did not tnink the 
question free from doubt, although convinced from the reasoning in 
said memorandum that the interpretation therein suggested was the 
better one and would lead to more just results. 

This report was forwarded February 27, 1906, to the Secretary of 
the Interior, with the following note from the Secretary to the 
President : 

In the President's judgment, without any reference to the act of Congress, it 
is perfectly clear that equity demands that the son of white parents who has 
no Indian blood In him, even though one of those parents may have been 
adopted into a tribe, should not be treated as an Indian. 

In view of the report of the Attorney General and the President's 
opinion expressed in connection therewith, the Secretary of the Inte- 
rior, on April 24, 1908, rendered a decision denying the application 
of Mary Elizabeth Martin for enrollment. 

As it appeared from the statement of the Attorney General that his 
report to the President was based upon a letter dated January 26, 
1906, from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the 
Interior, under date of March 14, 1906, requested of the Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs a copy of said letter, ^he latter, under date of 
March 15, 1906, complied with this request, inclosing also copies of 
several letters, written in 1886 and prior thereto, to various indi- 
viduals relating to the subject of Indian citizenship. The Secretary 
of the Interior was not convinced by the letters cited by the Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs, and on April 24, 1906. in a letter of 
some length to the commissioner, pointed out his objections to the 
latters citations. Subsequently he submitted to the Attornej^ General, 
under date of May 29, 1906, two Choctaw enrollment cases, one being 
that of Myrtie Randolph and her brother, W. J. Thompson. The 
other was the case of Cyrus H. Kingsburj' and his sister, Lucy E. 
Littlepage. In a letter of same date the Secretary of the Interior set 
forth fully and at considerable len^h the views entertained by 
him concerning the rights of white children, and in so doing devoted 
considerable attention to the history of the Choctaw Nation, as well 
as its laws, treaties, and customs. 

The Secretary's letter of Mav 29, 1906, together with the cases sub- 
mitted therewith, were considered by the Attorney General in his 
opinion of February 19, 1907, and after setting forth the facts in 
the Randolph -Thompson case and noting particularly that the deci- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIV'E CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 171 

sion adverse to the applicants had been rendered by the citizenship 
court, expressed the view that — 

Whatever their intrinsic merits, these claims have been finally decided ad- 
versely to the claimants by tlie judgment of the cltiaenship court. 

The Attomev General then took up the cases of Kingsbury and 
Littlepage. Tfieir right to enrollment was based primarily upon an 
act of the Choctaw Council of November 15, 1854, granting all the 
rights, privileges, and immunities of Choctaw citizei^ " unto John 
Parker Kingsbury and to his wife, Hannah Mariah. ' Under this 
act said persons were to enjoy all benefits to which citizens of the 
nation might thereafter be entitled, except in the participation of 
any sum of money which might then be due the nation unaer treaty 
stipulations theretofore made. 

It further appeared in the case of these applicants that the names 
of both were enrolled on the tribal Choctaw census roll of 1885, and 
that they had been in other ways recognized as citizens of the nation, 
having been born and raised therein. This case the Attorney Gen- 
eral decided in favor of the claimants, and, after discussing the 
opinion or report previously rendered by the Department of Justice 
on the same subject, stated as follows : 

The case of the present npplieants is quite different from that Just referred 
to. Here both parents were adopted into the tribe. It must have been con- 
templated that they might have children; and. If so, what was to be their 
citizenship If not that of their parents? 

In this case it will be noted that both parents were made citizens 
by adoption. By reason of this fact I desire to refer again to the 
case of Mary Elizabeth Martin. There both parents were also citi- 
zens by intermarriage, one of the Choctaw and the other of the 
Chickasaw Nation. The law gave such persons the right to marry 
and there was no bar to their marriage with each other. Could it be 
properly held that each, having become an Indian citizen by inter- 
marriage, lost that citizenship oy marriage to the other? In other 
words, was it possible that, by the intermarriage of two citizens, 
both became noncitizens? Furthermore, what would be the citizen- 
ship of children bom in such a household? As the Attorney General 
said in the case of the parents of Kingsbury and Littlepage, '' it 
must have been contemplated that they migfit have children, and, 
if so, what must be their citizenship if not that of their parents? " 
This feature of the Mary Elizabeth Martin case seems to have been 
overlooked. 

As I have suggested before, new cases as they arose presented 
different points for consideration. Subsequent to the opinion of the 
Attorney General of February 19, 1907, the Department of the In- 
terior was called upon to determine whether Martha Black and her 
children should be enrolled as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation. 
There Martha Black originally acquired citizenship in the Chicka- 
saw Nation by intermarriage with one Thomas Bacon, who was the 
son of Harvey Bacon, a white missionary adopted into the Chicka- 
saw Nation in Mississippi prior to the treaty of May 24. 1884. After 
the death of "^aid Thomas Bacon, his wife, Martha Black, married 
(Jeor^e Black, a white noncitizen, by whom she had two children." 
In this case it was held by the Secretary of the Interior, approving 
the opinion of the Assistant Attorney (ieneral of February 28, 1907, 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



172 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

that Mrs, Black and her children were entitled to enrollment. Here 
it was reasoned that Thomas Black was a full citizen of the Chicka- 
saw Nation, being the descendant of a fully adopted white i)erson; 
that he was not in the position of an intermarried white person, but. 
in legal status, he and his ancestor were Indians since prior to 18M, 
and within the opinion of the Attorney General of February 19, 
1907, in the case of Kingsbury and Littlepage. 

There was another point decided in this case, based upon the fact 
that Martha ^'^^k was a Cherokee by blood. It was held that she 
did not lose her citizenship by marrying George Black, for the reason 
that the in-marrying and out-marrying provisions of the Chicka- 
saw act of October 19, 1876, had no reference to Indians of other 
tribes, but only to citizens of the United States. 

There is one more case of importance which was decided by the 
Secretary of the Interior along this line. Approving the opinion of 
the Assistant Attorney General of March 4, 1907, in the case of Henr>' 
E. Burks, he pointed out the cases to which the Choctaw and Chicka- 
saw marria^ act of 1875 and 1876 had reference, as well as to those 
to which said acts did not apply. It appears that Burks's parents, 
at the time of their marriage, were already Indian citizens by former 
marriages, his mother being an intermarried Choctaw and his father 
an intermarried Chickasaw, and that their marriage to each other 
occurred prior to the treaty of 1866. The Assistant Attorney General 
expressed the view that the Choctaw act of 1875 was not intended 
to be retroactive; that it would certainly seem inequitable in the 
extreme to apply it to persons who married j^rior to the treaty of 
1866, or to their offspring born prior to that date, and that accord- 
ingly there appeared to be no lawful bar in such cases to the enroll- 
ment of the children as native bom Choctaws. 

He also pointed out that, inasmuch as the Chickasaw act of 1876 
was to take effect from and after its passage and, in view of the 
use of the word " shall " therein, as well as the inhibition contained 
in section 14 of Article I of the constitution of the Chickasaw Nation 
against retrospective laws, that said act was designed to have a 
prospective effect only and that it was intended to prevent an inter- 
married white from conferring Chickasaw citizenship by a second 
marriage upon a " citizen of the United States,'' or upon the issue 
resulting from such marriage, but that manifestly a marriage with a 
person who had theretofore become a member of either of said nations 
would not be such a marriage as would come within the terms of 
the statutes. 

These difficult questions were pressing for solution at the time 
when the volume of work following the opinion of the Attorney 
General of February 19, 1907, was at its high-water mark, and there 
was insufficient time to give the complicated questions the attention 
which was their due. There are two cases which I desire especially 
to bring to your notice because I met the applicants during the co^urse 
of my field investigation. Important information concerning the 
people in these cases is to the eitect that the equities are very strong 
m them, and that they are entitled, both by reason of the good charac- 
ter they bear in the communities where they live and the longyeai-s 
of industry and good citizenship, to a large measure of consideration. 

The first of these cases is that of tire said William J. Thompson and 
his sister, Myrtie Randolph, which was disposed of on jurisdictional 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 173 

grounds bv the Attorney Oeneral on February 19, 1907, as noted 
above. Tfiis Mr. Tliompson is also identified as the AVilliam J. 
Thoinpson who furnished me the affidavit of November 21, 1908, 
relative to the Choctaw rolls and records which were retained in the 
pffice of Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish. The father of this William 
J. Thompson and Myrtie Kandolph was Giles Thompson, a white 
man who became a citizen, by intermarriage, of the Choctaw Nation 
prior to the treaty of 1830, and whose name is mentioned therein. 

His membership in the tribe antedated its removal to the Indian 
Territory. After the removal of the tribe west he resided with the 
Choctaw- people and was uniformly recognized in many ways as a 
citizen. As appears from the recently discovered rolls, he was en- 
rolled by the tribal authorities in 1874. His children were born in 
the Choctaw-Chickasaw country and have always resided therein, 
having been educated in the Indian school and accorded generally 
the privileges of other citizens of said nations. Thev feel that their 
father was one of the Choctaw citizens to whom tne grant of the 
western lands was made pursuant to the treaty of September 27, 1830, 
and that as the grant was to inure to said citizens and to their descend- 
ants they come literally within the terms of the treaty. The seeming 
objection to their case is that their father, subsequent to the death of 
his Indian wife, married a white woman and that they are the issue 
of such marriage. Evidently this case is not parallel to that of the 
white children whose rights were discussed in the report of the 
Attorney General of February 24, 1906. William J. Thompson 
states that the former slaves of his father were enrolled as Choctaw 
freedmen because they were the slaves of a Choctaw citizen, but that 
although he is the son of that same citizen he is without citizenship 
rights in the Choctaw Nation. It would seem that the equities in 
this case are fully as great as in the case of Kingsbury-Littlepage. 

The second of the equitable cases which I desire to bring to your 
attention is that of John Ward and his sister, Sarah A. York. Their 
father, Samuel Ward, became an intermarried citizen of the Choctaw 
Nation September 29, 1848, through intermarriage with Minerva 
Thompson, a Choctaw woman. After the death of his Indian wife 
and on October 14, 1852, he married Eliza Jane Ramsey, who was a 
Cherokee Indian by blood, and was then residing in the Choctiiw 
Nation. Mr. Ward and Mrs. York, who now seek enrollment, are the 
issue of that marriage. I am unable to state their ages, but judge 
from their appearance they must have been born prior to the treaty 
of 1866. Enrollment rights are now claimed by them and their 
descendants. Mr. Ward lias served as deputy sheriff and has filled 
other important offices in the Choctaw Nation, having been one of the 
most potent influences therein for law, order, and civilization. He 
and his sister claim they were bom in the Choctaw Nation, educated 
therein^ and have always lived there; that they have improved lands, 
erected buildings, and' that the work of their whole lifetime is at 
stake. Decision adverse to them was rendered by the ChoclaAV- 
Chickasaw Citizenship Court. 

There are two facts in their history deserving of special attention. 
First, they are Cherokees by blood, being descendants of a woman 
who was a re^larly enrolled Cherokee, and have resided, through 
the comity whidi existed between the tribes in the Indian Territory, 
all their lives in the Choctaw Nation, and, second, the marriage ol 

• 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



174 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

their father to his Indian wife occurred prior to the treaty of 186(x 
Accordingly there is no clear bar to their enrollment as Cherokees 
by blood, but they do not seek such enrollment because they have 
always resided in the Choctaw Nation and all their property rights 
are there. Xor is it clear that they are not entitled to enrollment as 
native-bom Choctaws. Their father at the time of the treaty of 
18()G was residing in the Choctaw^ Nation^ and having theixjiofore 
married a Choctaw woman came literally within the terms of Section 
XXXVIII of the treaty of 186G. He and all other persons like situ- 
ated became adopted citizens by force of that article, even if they 
were not such prior to 1866. His children, if bom prior to the treaty, 
were already vested with citizenship rights at the date thereof^ and 
if born subseouent thereto were entitled to all the rights of adopted 
citizens. Unaer the circumstances it would appear that their case is 
fully as meritorious as the cases of Kingsbury -Littlepage and Martha 
Black et al. 

Based upon the different opinions referred to above and the various 
cases w^hich have come to my attention, my conclusion is that the 
doctrine of '" personal right,'' as applied to naturalization in said 
tribrs.or to admission to citizenship therein, should not be held to 
affect (1) the offspring of persons w^ho acquired citizenship through 
" adoption," (2) the offspring: of intermarried whites or others result- 
ing from marriages to noncitizens subsequent to the death of their 
Indian spouses, provided that the subsequent marriage was con- 
tracted prior to the act of November 9, 1875, if in uie Choctaw 
Nation, or prior to October 19, 1876, in the Chickasaw Nation, (3) 
the offspring of intermarried whites each of whom, by a prior mar- 
riage, acquired Choctaw^ or Cliickasaw^ citizenship, and (4) the off- 
spring OT intermarried citizens resulting from marriages to non- 
citizens subsequent to the death of the Indian spouses through whom 
citizenship was originally acquired, providea that either of the 
parents of such offspring was an Indian by blood of some other 
tribe. ^ 

As to the white children of intermarried citizens born after the 
death of their Indian spouses to noncitizen whites as the result of mar- 
riages contracted subsequent to said acts of November 9, 1875, and 
October 19, 1876, I am convinced that their rights have never had 
that full consideration which the questi6n is entitled to receive by. 
reason of its importance. The point involved in their cases is more 
difficult than the question affecting the intermarried whites, which 
was referred to the Court of Claims and finally decided, on appeal, 
by the Supreme Court of the United States. But I think that the 
members, as a class, have never been represented by attorneys at any 
hearing and that, as such, they have never had the opportunity to 
present brief of argument or to be heard. Even in the matter of 
Mary Elizabeth Martin, there is nothing in the report of the Attor- 
ney General of February 24, 1906, to show that the record in the 
case was before him or that the applicant was represented in any 
way. In that report the Attorney General pointed out that the 
question was not free from doubt. That this is true is also evident 
rrom the diverse nature of departmental decisions which have been 
rendered in the matter. 

I also think that the cases of those intermarried whites who were 
denied enrollment should be reconsidered where their alleged rights 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CmUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 175 

were based upjon marriages contracted prior to tlie said acts, accord- 
ing to the nation in which citizenship was claimed. 

(o) Identified Mississippi Choctaws wlio were not finally enrolled 
because tliey failed to furnish proof of removal to and settlement in 
the Choctaw-Chickasaw countrv. 

By section 41 of the act of'July 1, 1002 (32 Stat., G41), it was 
required (1) that Mississippi Choctaws should remove to the Choc- 
taw-Chickasaw country within six months following the date of their 
identification as such, and (2) that they should make proof of such 
settlement to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes within one 
year after said date. The duties imposed bv this section were so 
arduous that a large number of identified ^lississippi Choctaws, 
mostly full-blood Indians, were compellel to forego all benefits con- 
templated by the act. The total number of persons identified as 
Mississippi Choctaws was 2,534, but only 1,445 were finally enrolled. 
Thus there were 1,089 persons entitled under the law who failed to 
secure its benefits. This difference was due in part to the closing of 
the enrollment work on a fixed date. There was a considerable num- 
ber of persons in whose favor decisions were rendered during the 
latter part of February or in the early part of March, 190 <, for 
whom it would have been a physical impossibility to remove to the 
Indian Territory and furnish proof of settlement therein prior to 
March 4, 1907. There were others, as I found from personal inves- 
tigation, who removed to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country and who, 
falling to find work or other means of sustenance during the 3-year 
period preceding the issuance of patents to such persons, were com- 
pelled to return to their old homes in order to provide the necessities 
of life. There were still others who removed to the Indian Territory 
and who selected " provisional " allotments but were induced by 
speculators to lease their land for an inadequate consideration and 
to leave the country. As such leases were usually for long periods of 
time, the continued absence of the allottee was very much to the 
advantage of the lessee. 

(p) Children whose parents, although identified as Mississippi 
Choctaws, were not finally enrolled as citizens because they failed to 
establish proof of their removal to and settlement in the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country within the time required by law. 

The rights of these children, if living March 4, 1906, are substan- 
tially the same as of their parents. See opinion of the Assistant At- 
torney General of February 16, 1907, in the Mississippi Choctaw case 
of Nicholas Charles et al. 

V. 

Action which Should be Taken to Complete Unfinished Work, 
TO Correct Obvious Errors, and to Adjust Inequalities. 

Time has demonstrated that the work of enrollment was in an un- 
finished condition on March 4, 1907; that cases were inadvertently 
overlooked in the course of adjudication; that a considerable number 
of people failed to secure their citizenship rights through admin- 
istrative causes; that mistakes in names and classification were made; 
that there was inequality of opportunity, and that various other un- 
intentional wrongs were committed, with the result that persons 
similarly situatea have not been accorded equal rights under tne law. 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



176 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

The laws mentioned hereinbefore, governing the work of enroll- 
ment, were of a general nature well calculated to secure quick results 
in the disposition of ordinary cases which did not involve compli- 
cated or unusual questions, but those laws were not of such a nature 
as to render it possible to make proper disposition of special cases in- 
volving unforeseen circumstances, unexpected questions, and great 
hardship. 

It is now apparent that these general laws should have been fol- 
lowed by laws of broader sco])e and of a less technical nature, in- 
creasing the supervisory authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
to such a degree as to enable him to dispense justice untrammeled by 
jurisdictional limitations. 

Substantial justice may be done without further opening of the 
rolls. As originally and properly used, this expression related to the 
admission of new classes of people, for example, pei-sons who died 
prior to or were born after a given date, but it is obvious that it has 
no proper reference to the completion of unfinished business or to the 
correction of mistakes. It was to be presumed as a matter of course 
that a given class having been granted the privilege of making appli- 
cation, submitting testimony, and making up records, would be en- 
titled to have the work relating to their class completed rather than 
abandoned when in an unfinished condition. Xor is it to be pre- 
sumed that the United States ever intended this condition of affairs 
to come to pass. Otherwise, the Government would be guilty of ex- 
ercising bad faith in the treatment of its wards. 

Even the time allowed might have proved sufficient for the dispo- 
sition of the work then on hand, but the very act which provided lor 
the termination of the enrollment work at a given date also imposed 
another year's work upon the department in the enrollment of minor 
children. This fact, taken in connection with the many other duties 
devolving upon the Secretary of the Interior, had much to do in 
bringing about the present situation. 

The Secretary of the Interior should now be vested with a juris- 
diction which will enable him to apply equitable remedies to the 
situation. A court of equity, in the performance of its regular func- 
tions, would not hesitate to correct a deed by changing the name of a 
party or modifying a description of land, or otherwise to reform an 
instrument in order to make it conform to the intention of the parties. 
In like manner, the jurisdiction which should now be conferred upon 
the Department of the Interior would enable it to correct miststkes 
due to obvious error, thereby securing an early settlement of mooted 
questions and reducing the probability of prolon^d litigation. 

Experience has also show^n that* sufficient provision was not made 
for localizing the enrollment work. Permanent land offices were 
established and maintained in different districts for years, but there 
was no place outside of the general office at Muskogee maintained for 
any continuous period of time for the transaction of -enrollment busi- 
ness. Occasionally field parties were sent through the countr^^ and 
their coming was announced by notices in the public press and by 
posters displayed in public places. This method lacked certainty 
and permanence, however, and was not adapted to the needs of the 
poorer and more ignorant classes, particularly as it did not afford 
the members of the field parties an opportunity to do efficient service 
for persons living in out-of-the-way places. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 177 

It often proved that applicants, at the time of their first appear- 
ance before the commission, were totally ignorant of what was ex- 
pected of them and, in many cases, it was found necessary for them 
to produce additional proof. This was natural, for many of them had 
but little knowledge of what would constitute legal evidence of their 
rights. SubscKjuently rehearings were ordered and, in numerous 
cases, the parties, although living far from Muskogee, were required 
to be present with their witnesses at that place on a given date. Fre- 
quently it occurred that the remanding of cases bore no fruit what- 
ever notwithstanding extensive departmental correspondence had 
taken place in connection therewith. 

The failure to localize the work properly, considered in connection 
with the burden thrown upon the Indian of making application for 
his enrollment, must be regarded as of much importance in explain- 
ing the failure to complete the enrollment work fully and satisfac- 
torily in the time allowed. 

Referring further to the character of the work which should now 
be performed, it is entirely clear, without any argument whatever, 
that the disposition of the cases which I have in mind bears no com- 
parison to the controversies which arose concerning the rights of 
certain large families and groups of families who were parties to 
original applications. For example, consolidated cases of such a 
character are entirely different from one where all the members of a 
family were enrolled as citizens by blood except the mother, whose 
status was precisely the same as that of the other but who was pre- 
vented from making application on account of sickness, although 
she spent two days at the place of making application without being 
able to secure the attention of the commission and was finally com- 
pelled to depart for her home because of physical exhaustion. Con- 
sider likewise the case of the child whose two brothers were enrolled 
and who, equally with them, was entitled to enrollment, but for whom 
no application was made because his property interests were in the 
hands of a demented father. Similar to tliese cases is that of the six 
children, now in an orphan asylum, five of whom are full-blood In- 
dians and all of whom are undoubtealy Indian citizens, but for whom 
there was no one under obligation to make application. The parents 
of these children have been enrolled. Their names and family his- 
tor^*^ are well known to the officers of the department, and there is 
scarcely a stroke of work to be done except tne mere clerical action 
of inscribing their names upon the rolls. These cases and many 
others are to be found throughout the Five Civilized Tribes, and 
relief could be given and justice done in a very short period of time 
if the department were vested with jurisdiction to act. 

Moreover, action should be taken at the present time. Every 
month and every year will render it more difficult to deal justly by 
these people. The department now has men who are trained in the 
enrollment work. They are familiar with the questions of citizen- 
(*hip in said tribes and are able to handle the work at a minimum of 
ex]>ense and effort. In a great majority of these cases records have 
been made which are now accessible but which have never been con- 
sidered fully upon their merits. ' It is needless to say that in a few 
years, perhaps m less time, the men who are now capable of taking 
up this work will not be in the service of the Government or at ite 
disposal, and that to others the citizenship records will be un- 

69282--13 12 Digitized by ^OOglc 



178 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

intelligible. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the depart- 
ment has an organized field force familiar with the Indian people 
and with the situation, capable of acting directly and effectively. 
The work could be prosecuted more rapidly at this time than hereto- 
fore, owing to the fact that many vexatious problems have be^i 
solved and that a large proportion of the duties relating to Indian 
Territory have been disposed of. As I have explained before, a 
congestion of work resulted in the Indian Office and the depart- 
ment by reason of the convergence into the land division of the 
Indian Office and into the Indian Territory division of the Secre- 
tary's office of many streams of work coming from widely separated 
sources. It is to be remembered also that the bulk of citizenship 
•cases has been disposed of; that the citizens and members have 
secured their allotments in a large measure, and that, as to them, 
there will be no enrollment worK; the records in their cases are 
stored away ; for them there will be no rehearings or reviews. Their 
cases will not further occupy the attention of the department. Thus 
the way is clear for concentrating effort upon the few remaining 
cases. 

Nor is there sufficient reason to believe that the proposed action will 
be detrimental to the people of the State at large; at least not in any 
?ippreciable degree. There was a time when the work of enrollment 
was a necessary obstruction in the path of development in that it 
stayed temporarily the advent of Statehood and the diffusion of 
land among people of all races, but now the situation is changed. 
Oklahoma has been admitted into the Union : the real estate market, 
by the removal of restrictions by the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 
311), is probably loaded with all the land that it can possibly absorb 
at tair prices for several years to come. 

Moreover, the number of persons who will be the beneficiaries of 
new legislation can not possibly exceed 5,000 and, in my judgment, 
not one-half of them will be found entitled to enrollment. But sup- 
posing 5,000 to be the number and the total population of the State 
to be 2,000,000, the ratio will be at most only 1 to 400, or one- fourth of 
1 per cent. But not all of this number by any means will have to be 
investigated, for, as I shall show hereinafter, the majority of claims 
will be disposed of on existing records. As to the claimants them- 
:^!ves, it may be thought possible that they will be made the victims 
of extortionate contracts. This, however, is not a necessary objec- 
tion. Practically all of them have nothing at present. They have 
everything to win and nothing to lose, and consequently their only 
:means of raising monev will be to enter into contingent contracts; but 
contracts can be regulated by the laws governing allotments to be 
made hereinafter by providing in such laws that the land to be 
allotted thereunder shall not be subject to any prior lien or encum- 
l)rances unless founded upon a contract approved by the Secretary 
of the Interior. Besides, the allotment of the land would prove an 
easy and quick method of disposing of the surplus, and might pos- 
sibly hasten rather than retard the final disposition of the land 
problem. 

As I have above suggested, a poi-tion of the work can be done in 
connection with existing records, but some of it will necessarily have 
to be prosecuted through field investigations. I will point out a 
little later the classes of cases which can be disposed of by the 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVmZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 179 

respective methods. The field work could be localized successfully by 
increasing temporarily the force in each of the offices of the district 
agents, or by placing additional men in those offices charged solely 
with duties relating to enrollment work. These men would be re- 
quired to spend a portion of their time in the office of the district 
agent, but to devote the greater part of it and their energies to field 
work, to the end that no one should be overlooked. This force could 
be supplied wholly or in part through original appointments or by 
detail from the Secretary's office or from certain bureaus of the 
Interior Department. From my personal experience in the field, I 
am convinced that a competent examiner, with the assistance of a 
stenographer, could complete all the investigations that could possibly 
be needed in the most populous of the districts within six months. 

To secure quick action and to avoid circumlocution these field men 
should be under the control and direction of some officer or officers 
specially designed for the purpose located at Muskogee, so as to 
have easy access to all existing citizenship records. Under this 
arrangement it would be unnecessary for the major portion of the 
work to be sent to Washin^on. Recommendations could be made 
by the field agents and decisions rendered bv the central officer or 
board, and the latter's decision should be made final unless, perhaps, 
there was a failure to concur in the recommendation of the field 
examiner, and then only upon appeal. 

In the handling of such a force of field men tlie central officer or 
board should have elastic powers, so as to make it possible to shift 
the examiners from one district to another as the needs of the service 
might require. . 

I have made these suggestions in tentative form, of coui*se, and 
doubtless the plan outlined could be improved in various respects. 

The task to be performed will be rendered much simpler and easier 
of accomplishment than might otherwise be supposed by reason of 
the fact that the rights of a large portion of all possible claimants 
can be determined by the examination of records which are already 
made up but which, if disposed of at all, were denied upon juris- 
dictional and technical grounds. It will perhaps be difficult for one 
to appreciate this who is not familiar witli the hurry and confusion 
connected with the enrollment work after January 1, 1907. I have 
referred to this phase of thematter before and will not go into details 
at this time as to what occurred then, but I desire to suggest that, 
if any verification of my statement is deemed necessary, the men who 
were formerly members of the Indian Territory Division be called 
upon to state the facts as known to them, and that an examination 
be made of the decisions in the press-copy books covering that period 
as well as the entries upon the record book showing the last cases 
received and acted upon by the Secretary's office subsequent to said 
date. It is sufficient to say at this time that there were received in 
the Indian Territory division after January 1, 1907, somewhere 
between 2,500 and 3,000 separate cases, each of which involved one 
or more individuals. The consideration given these cases was, to 
say the least, far less than they were entitled to receive. Some of 
the cases did not reach the department until after March 4, 1907, 
and, as to those that were already here, the e>onfusion and excite- 
ment were too great to render anytliing except a superficial exami- 
nation possible as to the majority of the applications. Misunder- 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



180 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

standing of a serious nature arose concerning the opinion of the 
Attorney General of February 19, 1907, and, m supposed but mis- 
taken compliance therewith, it was erroneously applied to many cases 
with the result, as I have shown before, that a large number of 
persons were stricken from the approved rolls while others having 
parallel cases were simply denied enrollment in original decisions. 
Still others were stricken from the rolls or denied enrollment merely 
because of the jurisdictional and technical grounds upon which said 
opinion was rendered. 

To rectify wrongs unintentionally done subsequent to January 1, 
1907, I firmly believe that the department should be vested with 
jurisdiction to review all cases which were denied enrollment by the 
Secretary, or otherwise passed upon adversely by him or his office, 
subsequent to that date, with power in the Secretary of the Interior 
to correct obvious errors wherever found. If this be done, provision 
will be made to cover a large percentage of the meritorious cases. 

Legislation of the character suggest^ will go far toward minimiz- 
ing ^e amount of field work wnich would be required. In actual 
practice it would be found necessary, with but few exceptions, to 
confine actual investigation (1) to equitable cases which escaped at- 
tention because of their irregular nature and the general character 
of enrollment laws, and (2) to cases involving the transfer of names 
from freedmen rolls to citizens by blood. 

In fact there would be but little call for investigation and ex- 
amination in a large number of the equitable cases, for the reason 
that the records in existing " memorandum " and Mississippi Choc- 
taw cases already contain much information concerning them, while 
other records embracing the applications of near relatives furnish 
practically all of the additional testimony that may be needed in 
their cases. 

I would not recommend, as a general proposition, that applications 
be allowed or even invited. Of course none would be required or 
necessary in all cases embraced within the class which I have recom- 
mended for reconsideration. And again I take occasion in this con- 
nection to call attention to the fact that said class includes a largo 
portion of all cases which would require attention. Perhaps, how- 
ever, it would expedite matters to permit applications in specific, 
well-defined classes of cases. By so doing the attention of the de- 
partment would be called directly to such cases and it might perhaps 
be possible to act more quickly and with more certainty than other- 
wise concerning them. These classes are as follows: 

1. Persons under legal disability prior to March 4, 1907, some 
minors and orphans, the mentally unsound, ete. 

As to such persons, it is not to be presumed that there are appli- 
cations pending. 

2. New-born citizens who are the children of regularly enrolled 
citizens and freedmen but for whom no application was made within 
the time allowed by law. 

Doubtless it will expedite matters to permit applications on behalf 
of such persons. 

3. Transfer cases. 

By this class I refer to persons seeking transfer from the freed- 
men rolls to the rolls of citizens by blood. 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 181 

Owing to inequality of opportunity and for other reasons stated 
hereinbefore which need not be repeated, the only way to act speedily 
and definitely concerning these people will be to permit them to 
make application. 

As the last two classes can be definitely ascertained by reference to 
existing rolls and records, very little confusion could possibly arise 
by permitting them to make application, and much advantage might 
be aerived therefrom. But in no case should the power of the Sec- 
retary of the Interior be so limited as to prevent him from taking 
up, of his own motion, any case needing investigation, irrespective 
of whether or not application was made by the party interested. 

Here I might add that the census cards of the commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes and the records in the " memorandum cases " 
will show the names of rejected applicants, the quantum of Indian 
blood alleged by them, and their places of residence, thereby enabling 
the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with but little delay with 
such investigation whenever it may be deemed advisable. 

For the purpose of showing approximately the part of the work 
which can DC disposed of on existing records and the part which 
will require further investigation and testimony, I will refer again 
to the classes of cases mentioned in paragraph 11 of Part IV hereof 
as " meriting further consideration on equitable grounds," and point 
out in connection with each to what extent, if at all, further evidence 
will probably be needed. I will refer to these classes in groups 
wherever the same statement as to evidence will apply to more than 
one. The first three classes, briefly stated, are as follows : 

(a) Persons stricken from the rolls on jurisdictional grounds in supposed 
compUance with the opinion of the Attorney Genernl of February 19, 1907. 

(6) Persons denied enrollment on jurisdictional grounds in supposed com- 
pliance with the opinion of the Attorney General of February II), 1907. 

(c) Persons whose cases were not reached i)rlor to March 4, 1907, because of 
administrative delay or other causes chargeable to the officers of the 
Goremment. 

If jurisdiction should be given to the department, as suggested 
above, to review the work on citizenship cases, which was done or 
attempted to be done subsequent to January 1, 1907, practically all 
the cases embraced in the three classes would be covered, and the 
evidence now included in existing records would, with a few possible 
exceptions, be sufficient. 

(d) Persons not enrolled because of failure to make application or to submit 
proof, but prima facie entitled. 

Some evidence would necessarily have to be obtained and investi- 
gation made as to this class, but much of the needed evidence is 
Sready of record because many of the people of this class are mem- 
bers of families whose rights have been fully determined and in 
whose cases voluminous records have been made up. If here and 
there a single member of the family has been overlooked it would be 
a simple matter to ascertain his name, establish his relationship to 
the family, and prove that he was living at the time required by law. 
As an illustration of how simple the investigation might be in some 
instances, take the case of the child whose brothers were enrolled, 
but for whom no application was made because he had no one to 
represent him except a demented father. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



182 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

(e) Pereons who were denied enrollment under the act of May 31, 1900, upon 
jnrisdlctlonal grounds, bnt who are prima facie entitled. 

The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes was forbidden under 
said act of May 31, 1900, to receive or consider the application of 
any person who had not been enrolled or admitted as a citizen and 
duly recognized as such by the tribal authorities, and by reason of 
this provision there would have been no records in such cases had it 
not been for the further provision in the law that the refusal ojf the 
commission to receive applications should be final when approved by 
the Secretary of the Interior. The latter, in order that his action 
might be based upon some specific showing, required memoranda to 
be prepared in these cases for his inspection ; consequently this class 
of cases is referred to as " memorandum cases." Tliese memoranda 
were, as a rule, fully as extensive as the regular records and fre- 
quently show Indian blood and residence in the Indian Territory. 
Notwithstanding the showing thus made, the decisions in such cases 
ultimately were based upon lack of jurisdiction. The census cards 
of the commission and the memorandum records will supply in a 
large measure all the evidence needed as to this class. 

(/) The offspring of Choctaw freedmen who were prevented from making 
application under the act of April 26, 1906, because of the erroneous construc- 
tion of the commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. 

A limited amount of investigation will be necessary as to the per- 
sons of this class, but it will not be necessary to make an extensive 
examination of their cases, for if entitled to enrollment at all, all 
that will need to be established will be their relationship to persons 
who are already regularly enrolled, and to show that they were 
living at the date required by law. Manifestly the proof in their 
cases will be much simpler than that originally required for the 
enrollment of their parents. 

(si) Persons born to enrolled Mississippi Choctaws entitled, under the act 
of April 26, 1906, to enrollment as minors. 

As existing records show the source of right of the patents of 
these minor children, but little proof will be required as to them. 
Practically all that will be needed will be to show their relationship 
to the head of the family and that they were living at the time 
required by law. 

(/^) Persons who. by reason of a defect in the wording of the act of April 
26, 1906, although fully entitled, were not embraced In its terms. 

(t) Persons who, by reason of a defect in the act of March 3, 1905, were not 
finally enrolled thereunder although fully entitled to enrollment 

(/) Creek freedmen barred by tiie first paragraph of section 3 of the act of 
April 26. 1906, who were entitled to enrollment under the treaty of 1866 
between the Creelc Nation and the United States. 

(fc) Cherokee freedmen who were barred l)y the second paragraph of section 
3 of the act of April 26, 1906, who were entitled to enrollment under Article IX 
of the treaty of 1866 between the Cherokees and the United States. 

(l) Persons who, under technical constructions of the laws and agreements, 
were denied enrollment notwithstanding that other persons were 8ul)8equently 
granted enrollment In ptirallel cases under more liberal constructions. 

In these five ckvsses practically all the evidence that will be needed 
is already included in existing records. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 183: 

(m) Persons of mixed Indinn and negro blood who were enrolled as freedmen 
bat who are entitled to enrollm^it as citizens by blood. 

Necessarily investigation will have to be made as to the persons of 
this class. The fact that they failed to secure enrollment was 
undoubtedlv due in a large measure to lack of opportunity. It is 
my belief that they were not accorded all of the pnvileges to which 
they were entitled in the submission of proof of their rights. 

(n) Adopted and intermarried whites and their oflfspring claiming citizeiK 
ship in the Choctaw and Chickafeaw Nations. 

(o) Identified Mississippi Clioctaws who were not finally enrolled because 
they failed to furnish proof of removal to and settlement in the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country. 

Existing records will supply practically all of the proof needed 
as to persons of this class. Some of them failed to remove to the^ 
Indian Territory because they were not identified until shortly before^ 
March 4, 1907. Owing to this fact they were not allowed the full 
period of six months for removal nor the additional period allowed 
for proof of settlement. Others removed to the country but, for lack 
of resources, were unable to remain therein long enough to obtain 
any benefits from their identification. 

(p) Children whose parents, although identified as Mississippi Choctaws, 
were not finally enrolled as citizens because they failed to establish proof ot 
their removal to and settlement in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country within the 
time required by law. 

If it should be deemed advisable on the part of the Government to 
do anything for this class of persons, but little additional testimony 
would be required to identify the beneficiaries. This is true because- 
existing records already show the pertinent facts relating to the 
families of which they are members. 

Summarizing, it will be seen that, of the cases meriting further 
consideration upon equitable grounds, there are 10 classes as to which 
practically all the testimony that will be needed is included in exist- 
ing records; that there is one class as to which original investigations 
will have to be made; and that there are five classes which will 
require a little additional testimony and investigation to supplement 
the evidence already on file in existing records. 

I have attempted in this report to state all material facts fully and 
fairly, as the same are known to Ine, and it is my conclusion that 
there are many persons, some of whom are full-blood Indians, who 
are entitled to enrollment as citizens or freedmen of the Five Civilized 
Tribes, who have failed to secure the right to share in the lands 
and moneys which are justly theirs, and that such failure is charge- 
able in a large measure to the laws and to the administration of the- 
laws relating to the subject. I am also convinced that there is a 
simple and feasible plan which, with the consent of Congress^ 
would work justice in many worthy cases in a practical way and 
within a reasonable time. 

Very respectfully, Joseph AV. Howell, 

Assistant Attorney. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



184 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Exhibit A. 

Memorandum of causes resulting in the unfinished condition of enrollment work 
and omission of names from the rolls of citizenship of the Five Civilized 
Tribes. 

I. Under the act of June 10, 1890, the burden was thrown upon Indian citi- 
zens of faking application for their enrollment. Many of them were full- 
blood Indians, some were minors, others insane. All were entitled to look to 
the Grovernment for assistance. 

Paradoxical as it may seem, allotments were made to these same Indians 
subject to restrictions against leasing and sale. In oiher words, they had 
business capacity to acquire their allotments, but not to dispose of the same. 

II. In the hurry and confusion attendant upon the enrollment work under 
the act of June 10, 1906. many mistakes were made. This was due to the fact 
that the applications of approximately 75,000 persons were filed, and the com- 
mission was required under the law to dispose of each wi'^hin 90 days after 
receipt thereof. Time has demonstrated that the work of the commission in 
many cases under said act was worse than worthless. 

III. Two questions arose under the act of June 10. 1896, which afterwards 
led to great uncertainty, by reason of which much injustice was done uninten- 
tionally during the last weeks of the enrollment work. These questions were 
as follows : 

(1). Were the decisions of the Dawes Commission final in the absence of 
appeal to the courts? 

(2). Did the Dawes Commission and the United States courts have Jurisdic- 
tion over the cases of persons having a " tribal status"; that is to say, persons 
who were admitted or enrolled as Indian citizens, or otherwise duly recognized 
as such, prior to the date of said act? 

It is sufilcient here to note that the Department of the Interior, on May 21. 
1903, in the Wiley Adams case, adopted the view, with the concurrence of all 
offices and parties concerned, that the commission and the courts did not have 
jurisdiction over recognized citizens. This rule was followed in the adjudica- 
tion of many cases for four years, covering the period from May 21, 1903, to 
February 21, 1907. the latter date being the day when the opinion of the Attor- 
ney General of February 39, 1907, was recelvei! by this department. 

IV. During the first half of the period devoted to the enrollment work a 
number of statutory constructions were made which were based upon lack of 
knowledge and failure of appreciation of the slMiatlon of the Indian people. 
Some of thepe constructions were too narrow to permit of Justice being done, 
and It was several years before It was possible to get away from the erroneous 
practice which resulted from them. 

To Ulustrate, I will cite the case of Serena Jackson, whose mother and 
several full brothers and sisters were enrolled. She was denied enrollment 
although a babe five or six months of age, at the time the other members of the 
family were enrolled. 

The decision against her was based 4>n the technical ground that the decree 
In favor of the other members of the family did not specifically mention her 
name. Later It was held In parallel cases that the admission or recognition — 
the terms were practically synonymous — of the parent Included the unnamed 
minor child. 

V. The rigid requirements Imposed upon adults and persons of sound mind 
were also held to be applicable to Insane persons, minors, and others under legal 
disability. For example, Nancy Smith, Choctaw by blood, of unsound mind, 
and Lottie Adams, a- minor Chickasaw by blood, were both denied enrollment 
(See opinion of A. A. G. of June 8, 1901; 16 A. A. G., 21.) 

VI. Formal regulations were prescribed in the summer of 1899, under the 
act of June 28, 1898, requiring all persons to make applications for their en- 
rollment. These regulations were foreign to the purpose of said act which 
contemplated that the commission should take the initiative, even to the extent 
t>f requiring It to take "a census" if necessary. The failure of the com- 
mission to realize that It was to investigate enrollment rights, acting upon its 
own motion, as well as to hear cases which might be submitted to it, was one 
of the fundamental causes of its failure to reach all the people who were 
entitled. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 185 

VII. The residence clause contained in pairagraph eight or nine of section 21 
of the act of June 28, 1898, was misconstrued for about five years. The con- 
struction adopted was sc^ narrow and restricted that people were denied enroll- 
ment who were simply absent from the Indian Territory, although construct- 
Irely residents therein. This period of erroneous construction continued from 
June 28, 1898, to March 17, 1903. As a result much work had to be done over 
again. 

VIII. A proper administration of the act of June 10, 1896, and of the Curtis 
Act of 1898, and of the act of May 31, 1900, required that the Dawes Ck)m- 
mission should be in possession of all of the tribal rolls and in position to make 
intelligent use of the samei Nevertheless, it developed that the commission 
did not obtain a number of important rolls until late in 1902 or early in 1903, 
about six and a half years after such rolls should have been first obtained. 
It has been recently discovered that there were other Important rolls made in 
1874, as well as other citizenship papers and records, which the commission 
never obtained during the whole course of the enrollment work. The rolls 
last referred to were held in the office of Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish, and 
their failure to surrender the same amounted, on their part and on the part of 
the nations represented by them, as a great wrong upon all persons whose 
names appeared upon said rolls who were rejected because of the jurisdic- 
tional features of the act of May 31, 1900. This fact in Its effect upon rejected 
cases is somewhat analogous to a single challenge. In a court of Ittw, aimed 
against the Jury considered as a whole. 

IX. Besides the recently discovered rolls of 1874, there were other rolls which 
were not discovered until several years after the date when they were first 
required. 

X. Numerous important rolls were not indexed by the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes. A considerable number of these rolls were not even arranged 
in alphabetical order. Those that were so arranged were prepared by counties. 
This condition of affairs did not favor thorough work, and must necessarily 
have resulted in some cases in the rejection of the applicants. 

XI. The act of May 31, 1900, limited the Jurisdiction of the commission to 
the receipt of application by pai'sous duly enrolled or admitted by the tribal 
authorities as citizens. This act wns well calculated to insure quick results, 
but it worked great injustice. The rolls which it exalted to high importance 
were very defective. Many names were stricken off without explanation, whole 
pages were cut out, and they wera otherwise defective. All of such rolls 
were not obtained, and a considerable number were not Indexed. The effect 
of this act, which in itself was fundamentally wrong, was rendered much 
worse because of the facts stated in connection with the tribal rolls. 

The Secretary of the Interior was granted a supervisory power under this 
act which, under a liberal construction, could have been resorted to to save 
equitable cases. 

The evil effects of this act continued throughout the enrollment work, for 
the reason that it was made, by reference, part of later acts and agreements. 

XII- In the case of Esau Wolf, section 34 of the Choctaw-Chickasaw agree- 
ment (act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat, 641), it was so construed that the com- 
mission was held to be without authority to receive the application even of a 
full-blood Indian after December 24, 1902. 

Woirs name appeared upon the 1893 Chickasaw roll, and the commission 
might well have taken up his case of Its own motion, irrespective of any appli- 
cation by him on his behalf. This follows because the Curtis Act of June 28, 
1898. was made a part of the Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement by reference. 
Under aald Curtis Act it was the duty of the commission to take up and 
consider cases, of its own motion. It follows that while said section 34 
operated as a bar to the making of applications, the commission had full 
power to continue Its own Independent investigations. But no relief came to 
these i)eople until the act of April 26, 1906, which saved applications made 
prior to December 1. 1905. The remedial feature of this act may be likened 
to a reprieve coming subsequent to the execution. 

XIII. Persons having double Judgments In their favor, rendered by the 
Dawes Commission and the United States courts under the act of June 10, 
1896, were erroneously stricken from the rolls or denied enrollment In sup- 
posed compliance with the opinion of the Attorney General of February 10, 
1907. One of thesa cases included Lulu West and her children. From the 
recoM in this casa and from i>ersonal inspection of the applicants I am 
entirely satisfied that they should be enrolled. The erroneous application of 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



186 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

snid opinion of February 19, 1907, would never have been made had it not 
L»een for the fact that a sabsaquent opinion, rendered by the Attorney General 
March 4, 1907, modifying his former opinion, did not reach the department 
until two days after the closing of the enrollment work. 

XIV. Under the Cherokee agreement of 1902 the Dawes Commission held 
erroneously that it was without authority to receive the aw>ii<^atlon8 of citi- 
zens of the Cherokee Nation after October 31, 1902. This construction was not 
corrected until the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General of April 26, 1906, 
in the case of George Tinney, which came too late to be of any value in the 
enrollment work. 

XV. The acts of March 3, 1905, and April 26, 1906, provided for the enroll- 
ment of newborn children, the offspring of enrolled and recogniaed citi- 
zens. These chldren. by reason of the status of their parents, were clearly 
and indisputably wards, and minor wards at that, of the Government, yet the 
burden of making application was thrown entirely upon them. 

XVI. Snid acts of March 3, 1905, and April 26, 1906, were defective In their 
wording in that they failed to make provision for the enrollment of certain 
classes of children. The first of said acts provided only for the enrollment of 
the offspring of citizens whose enrollment had theretofore been approved by 
the Secretary of the Interior, overlooking the fact that there were apf^ications 
pending in other cases which were equally meritorious. The second of these 
nets correctotl sj«id defect, but at a late date, and was itself defective In another 
respect, in that it contnined no provision for the enrollment of a child living 
September 1, 1902, who was the offspring of a recognized citizen who died prior 
to that date. 

XVII. The remedial feature of the act of April 20. 1906, authorizing the 
commission to consider applications made prior to December 1, 1905. was not 
of much value because of its retroactive nature. As stated, it came very much 
like a reprieve after an execution. This follows because the day, December 1, 
1005, was reached and passed before the date of the act extendhig relief. 

XVIII. T'nder the act of April 26, 1006, the offsprint? of ejirolled Mississippi 
Choctaws were entitled to enrollment if living March 4. 1906. The Commission 
to the Five (Mvilized Tribes erroneously held that such children were not 
entitled to the benefits of snid act. This ruling was corrected by the department 
in its decision of May 25. 1906, in the case of Willis Willis, but the applicants, 
owing to the error of the commission, lost at least one-third of the 00 days 
nliowtHl them for the making of applicntlons. 

XIX. The commission erroneously held that the children of Choctaw freedmen 
were not entitled to enrollment under the act of April 2(5. 1906. This ruling 
was not corrected by the department until about a week or 10 adys before the 
closing of the time for the making of applications, consequently by error in 
administration these i)eople lost at least SO days of the OO-iiay period to which 
they were entitled for the filing of applications. 

XX. The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes erroneously held that Chero- 
kee freedmen were require<l to return to the nation prior to January 19, 1S67. 
Many case were heard nnd much testimony was taken under this erroneous 
theory of the law: probably from three to five years' work was done before the 
error was corrected. Finally, in the opinion rendered by the Assistant Attorney 
General, it was held that the privilege of returning was extended to February 
11, 1S67. As a result much of the work had to be done over again with great 
ex[>ense to all parties in interest. 

XXI. The act of April 26. 19(K5, contained a drastic provision concerning 
Cherokee freedmen requiring physical r»resence in the Clierokee Nation on 
February 11, 1.S67. whereby several families were deprived of rights guaranteed 
them under Article IX of the treaty of 1S(M}. Under this act some of the slaves 
of Chief John Ross were denie<l enrollment, although other slave members of 
his household liaving cases precisely analogous were enrolled. 

X.KII. The act of April 2(», 11KM;. contained a new and drastic rule of con- 
.st met ion hy which seveiMl members (»f tlie Cr(vk Nation were deprived of 
rijrhts to which they were ontithd under the treaty of 1806 between the Cre^k 
Nation and the I'nited States. Other persois having [mrallel cases were 
granted enrollment prior to the act of April 20. 1906. 

XXJII. The (Vmmiission to the Five Civilized Tribes, in Cherokee freedmen 
crises, adopted the practice o' supplementing the records In given case^ by 
adding thereto cojiles of the records ni other* cases. This was done althonga 
the parties to 'he nisos thus supplement^'d were not ptirties to the casc^ wherein 
the borrowetl testimony was talcrii 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 187 

TblB resulted In the adjudication of cases wltbont due notice and opportunity 
for iMaring'. In gome instances parties to cases were notified of the intention 
of the commission to add copies of records In other cases, hut this was done 
after the supplemental testimony was tak^. Under «uch circumstances re- 
bsttal testimony might have been furnished, perhaps, but even us to them tl\ere 
wftsno right of cross-examination at the original hearhigs. 

XXIV. The act of April 26, 1906, worked a hardship upon persons of mixed 
negro and Indian blood seeking a transfer of their names from the freedmen 
roll to the roll of citizens by blood. This was due to the fnct that said act 
Iirovtded expressly that no transfer should be permitted unless an application 
for enrollment by blood was made within the time provided by law ; that Is to 
say, prior to October 31, 1902. In the Cherokee Nation and t>ec«mb?r 24, 1902, 
In the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Compare these facts with the time 
allowed other Indians by blood whose rights might be adjudicateil by the cora- 
mlf"Slon if applications for enrollment could be shown prior to December 1, 
1905. Here was a discrimination of nearly three years* time against a certain 
cl ass of Indian cltiKens. 

XXV. If the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes hnd been limited in 
Its duties to the enrollment of citizens and freedmen, and had not been re- 
ffuired to j^rform a multitude of other duties, the enrollment work would 
hare f>oen finished much sooner, possibly in three years. But the commission 
was overburdened with numerous other duties relating to the allotment of 
lands, the settlement of controversies, the removal of restrictions for town- 
site purposes, etc. But the congestion in the oflBce of the commission was 
probably not so marked as in the Land Division of the Indian Office and tlie 
Indian Territory Division of the Secretary's Office, where all classes of worlf 
comins; from Indian Territory converged. 

XXVI. The work of enrollment was much delayed for administrative reasons. 
For example, complicated cases would arise respecting certain classes of cases. 
They would be referred to the Assistant Attorney General for opinion. Ther<» 
they would have to take their place, with other matters coming from other 
bureaus, and await action In their turn. While waiting for such opinions, it 
was the practice of the division to suspend action in parallel casea When the 
opinions came out It sometimes occurred that rehearlngs were found necessjiry, 
and at times the commission was required to adopt a new rule of practice 
afTeotinigr large numbers of applicants. 

Important matters were also submitted to the courts and. pending action 
thereon, parallel cases were held up. A notable example of this kind is that 
of the case of Intermarried whites, which was In the courts for three or four 
years and perhaps longer. 

Many cases were also held up at the request of the attorneys /or the Choc- 
taw and Chickasaw Nations waiting for the decision of the Choctaw-Chk kasaw 
court in cases which said attorneys claimed to be parallel with those before 
the department. 

The penalty for all these delays finally fell upon the Indian >\ards of the 
Government. 

XXVII. There was a vast amount of work on hand during the months of 
January and February of 1907. Shortly before the termination of the enroll- 
ment work, the Secretary of the Interior Informed Congress that unless the 
time for completing the rolls was extended for one year, many worthy citizens 
would be denied their rights. Several reports to Congress, rendered In February 
and March of 1907, showed there were between 2.500 and 3,000 cases requiring 
action at the bands of the Secretary of the Interior within the space of a few 
weeks at most. It was lui|>osslble to give full and careful consideration to all 
Koch cases. Some were erroneously denied in suprwsed compliance with the 
opinion of the Attorney General of Februai-j- 19, VMH. Others were never ex- 
amined at all. The rosult was that the enrollment work was finished in law. 
but not in fact, on March 4, 1907. 

XXVIII. Shortly prior to the termination of the enrollment work it was 
discovered that the reports, recommendations, and decisions of the Dawes Com- 
mission were predicated ui>on supposed decisions of the I'nlted States Court 
for the Northern District of Indian Territory, when. In fact, the commission* 
was without autheatlc records of the decrees and judgments of said courts. 
Based ur)on the comml.ssJon's rei>orts some were denied enrollment, and others 
were stricken from the rolls In snpiwsed compliance with said opinion of Feb- 
ruary 19, 1907. This relates only to the Cherokee and CYeek Nations. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



188 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

X.XTX. In the Ijind Division of the Indian Office and the Indian Territory 
Division of the Secretary's Office there was great congestion of work owitig 
to the fact that the business of all branches of the service in Indian Territory 
was required to ykibs through these respective divisions in the order named 
before final action was taken. The result was that while one man's application 
was pending, another's citizenship rights would be accorded, his ailotment 
would be made, tho land contest would be settled to which he was a party, his 
land would be leased for oil or gas, and he would be the recipient of thousands 
of dollars of income, or his restrictions would be removed and his land actually 
sold. Of course, the favor thus shown in advancing one man's case retarded 
the others in a corresponding degree. Following this came the arbitrary closing 
of t^e rolls on a fixed date. 

XXX. The hurry and confusion toward the end of the enrollment work re- 
sulted in unintentional action in some cases. Final decisions were sometimes 
based upon some particular fHct which would have been satisfactorily explained 
had there been time to examine the whole record. 

XXXI. The opinion of the Attorney General of February 19, 1907, came at a 
most unfortunate time. ^Vf ter the receipt thereof, there were only a few days 
left to complete the enrollment work. There was not sufficient time to analyse 
said opinion or to confer with the Department of Justice concerning it. A 
hasty telegram was prepar^jd in the department and sent to the Uawes CJom- 
mission. Bused upon this telegram, a large list of names was prepared of 
persons supposed to come within the terms of said opinion, and recommendation 
was made that such n.tmGS be stricken from the rolls. 

The points In this opinion, which were most far reaching In their effect, 
were decided wholly upon jurisdictional grounds: whereas the rulings of the 
Department of the Interior upon the same points were bnsed entirely upon 
grounds going to the merits of the cases. The result was that there was a 
hurried attempt to review ond cliange many decisions representing the work 
of approximately four years 

It Is now definitely settled that this opinion was misapplied and misunder- 
stood In respect (1) to persons who were simply denied in 1896 by the Dawes 
Oonimlsslon, and (2) to persons who, having double judgments In their favor, 
failed to transfer or appeal their cases to the citizenship court. 

Many names were stricken from the rolls because of .these errors. There 
were also many crses pending at the time which were disposed of In original 
decisions based upon the Siune erroneous grounds. 

As a matter of Justice and ?ood conscience, the work should not be allowed 
to remain in its present unfinished condition, but sufficient jurisdiction should 
be invested in the Secretary of the Interior to enable him to correct obvious 



Exhibit A J. 
Affidavit of \V. J. Thowiison, of yovanhcr 21, 1008, of Pauls Valley, Okln. 

My father, Oiles Thompson, in 1824 married a half-breed Indian, the daughter 
of Noah W.Ul. Ill 1S,30 my father assisted in making the treaty of Dancing 
Rabbit, and his name ai)i)oars In the supplemental treaty of Dancing Rabbit 
as a beneficiary thereunder. His name also appears on the roll of 1830, the 
same as anv other Indian. My father came to this country In 1<S32 or the 
spring of 1^33. Some time in 1840 he settleil at Koggy Dei)ot in the Choctaw 
Nation and oiKMied up the .*:alt works. My father was given a grant by the 
Choctaw Council to oi)erate those works and no one could come within a square 
mile of them. He operated those works for many years. 

My father was recognized as any other Indian; used to be a member of the 
council. In 1ST5 he CJime to the Chickasaw Nation, or removed there from 
the Choctaw Nation. There was a census taken in 1S74 in the Choctaw Nation, 
just before father left that nation, by ShorifT S. Gardner, and my father's 
jiame api)eared on that census and all of his family except myself, as I was 
not born at that time; was not born until July 14, 1870. 

In lS7r> father moved to the Chiokawiw Nation, where I was bom In 1870. 
In 1870 I was born on the farm. My father died in 1877 and the Chickasaw 
courts administered on his estate and the seal of the Chickasaw Nation is on 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 189 

the administratrix. My father made a will, and in that will he gave me the 
farm that I was bom on. He willed all of the children personal property and 
other farms. My mother was administratrix of the will. 

The papers in this case are in Muskogee and I think they are with the 
Dawes Commission, but it is possible that they are with the citizenship court. 

After the death of my father I lived on the farm for many years and owned 
it and controlled it the same as aiiy other citizen. I had other farms in the 
eonntry and I improved them the same as any other citizen in the country. 
Permits were Issued to my renters on my farms. 

I attended school in the Choctaw Nation at Atoka the same as other Indian 
Htlsens, and had to pay no tuition. 

About 1880, I believe, my sister, Myrtle Thompson, now Randolph, married a 
white man, and the Choctaw authorities issued him a license for $50 to marry 
her; and about the year 1888 my sister, Minnie Tl^ompson, married William 
Wbeat and was issued a national license; at least that is my understanding of 
tlie matter. 

Both Wheat and Randolph were accorded rights the same as other citizens 
and Improved farms and were issued permits. We were Choctaws, and father 
moved to the Chickasaw Nation in 1875. My brother and I were small, and 
not being citizens by birth of the Chickasaw Nation did not take the same 
interest in citizenship affairs as we would probably have done had we con- 
tinned to reside at our home in the Choctaw Nation. I myself was not of age 
mitil 1897. 

Through my mother, Ellen Wall, and my stepfather, Samuel C. Wall, we 
brought suit in the Indian court for the possession of a certain tract of land 
which we claimed as Indian citizens, and a decision was rendered at one of 
the places holding court at that time, either at Tishomingo or Oakland, in our 
favor. 

We also brought suit in the Choctaw Nation on a note given by an Indian 
citizen for certain cattle, the amount which was claimed being about $14,000, 
including the interest. I first attempted to file a suit In the ITnlted States 
court, but Judge Clayton refused to take Jurisdiction ; his action in the matter 
was based upon the ground that he had no jurisdiction because both of the 
parties were Indian citizens. Subsequently the case was filed in the court of 
Judge John Harrison, who was an Indian judge of Atoka County, Choctaw 
Nation. 

The latter court assumed jurisdiction and the case was tried therein. 

The papers should be with the records of that court at this time. My mother, 
Kllen Wall, was a party to that suit. 

We made application to the Dawes Commission for enrollment in 1896 and 
our petition was denied. We took an appeal to the United Stales court and 
the decision of the commission was reversed. Subsequently, supposing that we 
must go to the citizenship court, we transferred our case to that court where 
a decision adverse to us was rendered. Still later, on February 19, 1907, an 
opinion was rendered by Attorney General Bonaparte holding that the Judg- 
ment of the citizenship court was final. Two sentences In the opinion should 
be noted. One of them Is as follows : 

" Indeed, as I have suggested, tlie applicants themselves, having voluntarily 
submitted to the Jurisdiction to the commission, might be fairly held estopped 
to now deny It." 

The other sentence of the opinion of Mr. Bonaparte Is as follows : 

" WTiatever their intrinsic merits, these claims have been finally decided ad- 
versely to the claimants by the Judgment of the citizenship court" 

This opinion Is followed by the opinion of Cyrus H. Kingsberry and his 
sinter, Lucy E. Littlepage, the offspring of white parents, both of which were 
adopted by an act of the Choctaw Council. In the latter case the applicants 
didn't go before the citizenship court. Their names were found upon the tribal 
Choctaw roll of 1885. The opinion was in their favor and they were placed 
upon the finally approved rolls. 

While my case was pending I went to Tishomingo and I talked with Mr. 
Cornish, attorney for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. I asked him 
where I could find the records pertaining to my citizenship and he said at 
Tuskahoma and I went and got the national secretary, Mr. Wilson, and he 
showed me through the vault and I examined the records there, which were 
v«y few, but was told that Mr. Cornish had them with him at South Mc- 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



190 FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OJUiAHOMA. 

Alester. I left Tuskaboiua and went to South McAleeter to the office of Haas- 
field, McMurray & Corulsh aud told the man in charge of the office that Mr. 
Cornish had sent me to look through the records of the Choctaw Nation. He 
looked surprised at first and I told blm who I was and he then took me to a 
room at one side of the office which was partly filled with hoxes and 1 west 
through a great many of those records and or)ened box after box and found 
records pertaining to national affairs, some of them pertaining to the net- 
proceed money. I looked further and found that some records entitled an act 
of the Choctaw Council together with the date, all In writing. In searching 
through those pai>ers I found a roll made in 1874 by Sheriff S. Gardner, of 
Blue County, and also rolls of other counties, and in this roll of Blue County 
of 1874 I found the name of my father, Giles Thompson, and all our family 
except myself, as I was not born at that time as heretofore stated. I also 
found in searching over those records a large book about 8 or 10 inches wide 
and about 18 to 20 inches in length and it bad a list of names, among which 
I found a list of i)ersons entitled, as heirs of Giles Thompson, to receive money 
from the Choctaw Nation. I also shw the name of Samuel C. Wall as the heir 
of Noah Wall in the same book. I brought the census roll of 1874 and those 
books with me to Kiowa where my nephew, Mr. Ward, was then senator, and 
told him what I had done and he said it would be all right. 

On my way home on the train taking the records with me I met Mr. Cornish 
and I told him that I went to Tuskahoma but found no records there pertain- 
.ing to citizenship, and that I went to his office ami told his help there that 
he had sent me over and that I had found the records there, and Mr. Cornish 
was vei-y angry, turned veiy white, and said to me that he was surprised tliat 
the men in his office had permitted me to go through the records and that I 
was the only person who had ever gone through those records regarding citiz^i- 
ship. I told him I didn't think that I had done anything wrong, but that I 
thought I was entitled to see the records pertaining to my father*s citizenship 
In this country and that that was all I wanted, and that if I was not entitled 
to citizenship I did not want it; all I wanted was a fair trial and I thought that 
he should allow me that. 8o we talked for some time and I told him that I 
didn't think that he should he mad at me and he said that he was not so mad 
at me as he was at his help in his office. Mr. Johnston was on the train with 
me and Mr. Cornish got up and went over and sat down with him and I wcmt 
on to Tishomingo to see my attorney, ^fr. O. W. Patchell, and I showed him 
the rolls and books and told him what I had done. Mr. Cornish was very angry 
uiKHi learning what I had done and he remarked that this put him in a very 
embarrassing position. Afterwards Mr. Patchell and I had a talk with Mr. 
Cornish in Tishomingo and he made the same statement about the^books that 
he had to me; that is, that It put him in a very embarrassing position for me 
to go to Tuskahoma and then for me to go to his office at South McAlester and 
find the records there in place of Tuskahoma. Mr. Patchell and I told Mr. 
Conilsh tliat ail we cared about the books and records was for the Information 
in them concerning my father and that we thought they should be made a part 
of the record and he then agreed to have the national secretary to certify to 
those records, and, accordingly, we turned them over to him. I don't tiiink 
that Mr. Conilsh ever carried out his promise. This occurred In Septem))er or 
October of 1904, as nearly as I can remember. 

I desire to add tXisii. although I have been denied enrollment as a citiaen of 
the Indian Nation, notwithstanding that I am the son of Giles Thompson, it is 
a fact that my father's slaves have been enrolled as fi^eedmen upon the grounds 
that their former master, who was my father, was a citizen of the Choctaw 
Nation. 

I can not understand why this should be. 

I wish also to state that I talked to Judge Weaver after the decision was 
handed down In his office at Tishomingo, and he told me he thought I was as 
much entitled to citizenship as any Indian in the Territory, and that he was 
sorry that the judges did not agree with him, and he used these words : I can't 
for the life of me see, after the attorneys of the nations admitting that your 
father, Giles Thompson, aiipeared upon the 1830 roll and the treaty of 1890. 
how they could cut you out, and I hope you can get it reopened in a higher 
court. 

Mv half brothers and slaters, children of my father and his first wife, who 
was'an Indian, and tlie descendants of such brothers and sisters, have all been 
enrolled and land has been allotted to them. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVIMZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 191 

I, William J. Thompson, being duly sworn, state upon my oath that the 
statements appearing above on this and the preceding five pages are true as to 
all matters which I have referred to as coming within my personal Imowledge, 
aad that all tkke other statements on said pages are true to the best of my 
knowledge and belief. 

William J. Thompson. 

United States of America, 
State of Oklahoma, Oarvin County, 

Subscribed and swoni to btefore me, a clerk of the TTulted States .court in 
and for the Eastern District of Olilahoma, this 2l8t day of November, 1908. 

R. P. Harrison, Clerk. 
[seal] By John Cordell, Deputy, 



Exhibit B. 
Field notes on recently discovered roll of 1874- 

Upon examination of the roll for Blue County, Choctaw Nation, I find that 
it iji endorsed on the back, " Census return. S. Gardner, Sheriff of Blue county, 
Choctaw Nation this 29 day of Airrll, A. D., 1874." This roll is very ancient 
in appearance. It is literally a roll, being made up of sheets of paper contain- 
ing lists of name«, one sheet after another being pasted on the other — the whole 
• roll being several yards in length. The roll is divided off in columns, the first 
of which shows the name of the county. The second is entitled ** Indian " and 
subdivided into heads, males and females. The male column is further sub- 
divided into columns, showing: First, persons under 10 years of age; second, 
over 10 and under 18; third, over 18 and under 21 ; fourth, over 21 and under 45; 
fifth, over 45. 

The column entitled ** females " is subdivided into, first, under 16 years of ni?e; 
second, over 16 years. 

Next comes a column for free i)ersons of color. This is snbdlvideil into col- 
nmns, entitled, first, males and second females. 

The next column Is entitled ** Freednien from State and other nation." This 
column is subdivided Into, first, under 8 years; second, over 8 years and under 60. 

The third column Is over 60. 

The next general subdivision Is entitled "Acres in cultivation." This Is .sub- 
divided into, first, cotton; second, grain. 

The next column Is production, subdivided into, first, bales of cotton ; second, 
bushels of com; third, bushels of wheat; fourth, bushels of oats; fifth, horses, 
mares, etc. (page is torn and last word can not be ascertained). 

Upon this roll is found the name of Giles Thompson, opposite No. 98. It is 
significant that the tribal authorities enrolled this man In the column provided 
for " Indians." This shows that there were 4 males In the family under 10 
years of age; 1 over 45 years of age; and one female over 16 years of age. 
Upon the same roll I find the names of William Buckholts opposite No. 101, 
Mary Buckholts opposite No. 104. The name of Peter Maytubby also appears 
upon this roll and many others. There are a total of 530 names on the roll for 
this county. There are also with this roll rolls for other counties. 

The ChocUw tribal rolls of 1885, 1893, and 1896, in the possession of the 
commissioner, have been examined and the name of Giles Thompson can not be 
identified on any of them. The statement of W. J. Thompson shows that his 
father, Giles Thompson, died In 1877. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



192 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

EiXHIBIT C. 

Schedule of books, papers, and records, the property of the Choctaw Nation, 
delivered by Mansfield, McMurray d Cornish to the Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes in accordance with the ad of Congress Approved May 
27, 1908. 

Box No. 1 : 

Tribal tax— 

1. Permit book of J. D. Surratt for the year 1900. 
- 2. Permit boolc of J. D. Surratt for the year 1896. 

3. Permit boolc of J. D. Surratt for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899. 

4. Permit of J. D. Surratt 

5. Permit book for the year 189a 
t>. Permit book for the year 1899. 

7. Three permit books (no date). 

8. Hay royalty book. 

9. Permit book for the year 1900. 
Net-proceeds fund — 

1. Record of proceedings before Choctaw Net Proceeds Commission 

of 1889. 

2. Claim docket, Choctaw Net Proceeds Commission. 

3. Record of proceedings before Choctaw Net Proceeds Commission 

of 1889. 

4. Record payment of claims, Choctaw net proceeds fund from March 

to October 14, 1889. serial Nos. 1 to 1682, inclusive. 

5. Original vouchers payment of Choctaw net proceeds fund Nos. 1 to' 

1538. inclusive. 

6. Docket of Choctaw Net Proceeds Commission, September 23, 1889. 

7. Docket of claims, Choctaw Net Proceeds Commission, third district. 

8. Report of E. Poe Harris, in re Choctaw net proceeds. 

9. Coi)y of American State Papers, Public Lands, volume 7, pages 
' 38 to 139. Inclusive. 

10. Roll containing list of cajjtains for Musholatubbee district. 

11. Roll containing list of captains In Greenwood LeFlore's district 

12. Rej)ort of National Auditor Basil L. LeFlore of national warrants 

issued for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1877. 

13. National auditor's report of national warrants issued for fiscal 

year ending July 30, 1875. 

14. Index to cultivation roll, Musholatubbee district. 

15. Docket of Court of Claims, Choctaw Nation, first district. 

16. Docket of Choctaw Court of Claims. 

17. Report of Samuel Foleom, October 14, 1867. 

18. Minutes and proceedings, board of chief commissioners, beginning 

September 4, 1876. 

19. Sheriffs census of Gaines County, Choctaw Nation. 

20. Sheriff's census of Skullyvllle County, Choctaw Nation. 

21. Sheriff's census of Blue CoUnty. Choctaw Nation. 

• 22. Various and miscellaneous rolls (manuscripts), schedules, wills, 
and other sundry papers concerning Choctaw net proceeds 
claims. 
Citizenship — ^ 

1. Office docket of citizenship cases appealed from the Commission 

to the Five Civilized Tribes to the United States Courts for the 
Central and Southern Districts of the Indian Territory. 

2. Leased district enrollment book, Choctaw Citizenship Commission. 

3. Book containing docket and record, Choctaw revisory board, first 

district 
Miscellaneous — 

1. Poll book of Round Lake precinct, Atoka Countj*, Choctaw Nation. 

2. Poll book of Siloani Sr)rings precinct, Sans Bois County, Choctaw 

Nation of 1805. 
Box No. 2: 

Net proceeds fund — 

1. Sundry envelopes containing evidence and papers relating to Choc- 
taw net proceeds claims, about 1,238 envelopes. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 193 

Box No. 3: 

1. Acts and resolutions passed by General Council of Choctaw Nation, 

from October, 1S05. to March 20. 1872. 

2. Acts and resolutions of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation, 

from October 11, 1S64, to March 20, 1S72. 

3. Acts and resolutions of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 11, 1889, to July 1, 1893. 

4. Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from December 5, 1891, to November 11, 1895. 

5. Senate Record of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation from 

January 17, 1889, to October 28, 1892. 

6. Acts and resolutions of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 11. 1884, to January 18, 1889. 

7. Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from October 1, 1883, to October 35, 1889. 

8. Record of the House of Representatives of the General Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from July 1. 1893, to January 8, 1901. 

9. Record of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation, October 31, 

1892, to November 12, 1895. 

10. Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from October 0. 1884, to October 15. 1889. 

11. Record of Senate of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation from 

September 18, 1896, to November 6, 1901. 

12. Journal of the House of Representatives of the Greneral Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from October 16, 1889, to December 5, 1891. 

13. Record of the Senate of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 7, 1884, to October 15, 1888. 

14. Record of the Senate of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 24, 1894, to March 29, 1899. 
16. Record of the Senate of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 
from October 15, 1888, to October 14, 1892. 

16. Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from October 1, 1877, to October 3, 1883. 

17. Record of the Senate of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 14, 1892, to October 23, 1894. 

18. Acts and resolutions of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 26, 1877, to October 20, 1883. 

19. Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Council of the 

Choctaw Nation from October 5, 1880, to November 5, 1883. 

20. Record of the S«iate of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation 

from October 11, 1884, to November 7, 1888. 

21. Blank book, census roll of Choctaw Nation. 

22. Blank book, census roll, Choctaw Nation, circuit court district 

Schedule of hooka, papers, and records, the property of the Chickasaw Nation, 
delivered hy Mansfield, McMurray d Cornish to the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes in accordance with the act of Congress approved May 
frt, 1908. 

Chickasaw incompetent fund claims: 

1- Docket book for incompetent claimants, May 2, 1889. 

2. Record book D, Chickasaw incompetent fund claimants. 

3. Record book M. & E, Chickasaw Incompetent fund claimants. 

4. Record book containing evidence in re Chickasaw incompetent fund 

claimants. (Same book) . 

6. Incompetent fund record and list of original claimants. 

6. Evidence and papers of claimants of heirs of Tewaha to share of Chicka- 
saw incompetent fund. (1 and 5 same book.) 
Adflcdlaneous * 

1. Joumai of the House of Representatives of the Legislature of the 

Chickasaw Nation from September 5, 1887, to September 20, 1894. 

2. Record of the Senate of the L^lslature of the Chickasaw Nation ftrom 

September 5, 1885, to September 28, 1896. 
Citizenship : 

1. Record of Chickasaw Citizenship Commission beginning September 23, 
1896. 
69282—13 ^13 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



194 FIVE CIVIIilZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Muskogee, Okla., July 25, 1908, 
Tills is to certify that 1 have this day received from Messrs. Mansfield, Mc- 
Murray & Cornish, of McAlester, Okla., the papers, records, etc., belonging to 
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations listed on the foregoing pages numbered 
1 to 5, inclusive. 

J. G. Wright, Commissioner, 



Exhibit D. 

Data relative to the rolls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the 
possession of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. 

1896 'Choctaw census roll. — Has columns showing head of family, children, 
subdivided into males and females, showing age, relation to head of family, 
and column for remarks. Appearance of roll uniform — that Is, all, or nearly all, 
of the names are written In same hand ; column for remarks not complete, but 
show county; relationship to the head of the family sometimes shown, but 
not always definitely — that is to say, whether child or ward. As a general rule 
the showing as to relationship to the head of family Is very defective and In 
many cases there Is no showing whatever. 

Upon the rolls are notations in blue pencil placed there by the Dawes Com- 
mission, showing the census card numb6r of the family. The local district In 
which the people live Is also noted from time to time. Wherever notations are 
made In writing, such as " dead," etc., there Is nothing to show by whom made. 
There are, however, notations showing death of parties by stamp placed by 
clerks of the Dawes Commission. 

This roll was made up by copying lists prepared by county enumerators. 
The roll was prepared under authority of the act of Congress approved June 10, 
1896, and in connection with which see supplemental acts of the council, re- 
ferred to In the reports relating to the Betty Lewis and William C. Thompson 
oases. 

This roll was obtained by the commission in 1897 or 1898 and was used In 
the field work of the latter year. Apparently the index of the roll was com- 
pleted March 25, 1899, by Philip G. Renter and Mark Klrpatrlck. 

On page 10 of roll, Nos. 390 to 392, Inclusive, the family of J. E. Atkinson, 
I find names of head of family and male children crossed out; following 
his name, under head of " Remarks," are the words " Don't enroll " without 
Initials or signature. Upon the same page I also find the word "dead" in 
pencil without being Initialed after the name of Lorena Anderson, No. 396. 

On page 15 several people of the name of Askew are enrolled In pencil and 
without the use of the marginal numbers which ^owed the number of citizens. 
In the column for remarks the word "doubtful" is placed after the name of 
B. B. Askew. This Is written in pencil and not Initialed or signed. In Index- 
ing the roll the commission omitted these names; although In pencil, they 
appear to be written In the same hand as the rest of the roll. Occasionally 
will be found the entry of names written in another handwriting than that 
which uniformly prevails throughout the census book. For example, Nos. 544 
and 545, Mary Elizabeth Axrlngton and Rosa Valentine Arrlngton, and also 
on the same page that of Bumey Etta Anderson, No. 555, and othera Where 
names are written on this page In a different handwriting the purpose seems 
to have been to set forth the full name of thft persons in order to identify same. 
It is manifest that such a scheme could have been resorted to to connect up a 
person with the roll. This roll Is said to be, with respect to Its condition, one 
of the very best rolls received by the commission. The general remarks made 
above may be fairly said to be applicable throughout the roll. 

On page 327, under the head of " Chickasaw district " are to be found nota- 
tions *' Enrolled without authority of law " after the. name of John T. Thomp- 
son and other numbers, In all about 22 persons. Various other notes appear 
upon these pages. For example, "Enrollment refused." This last notation 
occurs upon several pagfes. I also find the notation on page 305 opposite various 
names "Admitted by U. S. Ot. South McAlester," etc. I find no notation signed 
or initialed, but I am' Informed that there are probably some such ; at least one 
is known of signed by Mr. Blxby. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 195 

The total number of persons enrolled upon this roll Is 14,248 citizens by 
blood. The total number of citizens of the Choctaw Nation whose enrollment 
was finally approved are Included on 6,084 straight census cards. In this con- 
nection it must be borne in mind that not every name appearing upon the cards 
within this number was finally enrolled. This reference is made to the number 
of the cards as showing as nearly as possible the number of cases. In addition 
to the staight cards there were approximately 1,000 "doubtful" cards; per- 
sons whose names appear thereon were. In some cases, admitted and in others 
rejected. There were also about 900 cards in rejected casea Some of these 
were also admitted upon further evidence. 

As the work stood at the final wind-up the number of rejected cases stood 
to the number of admitted cases in the proportion of about one to four or five ; 
that is to say, there were about one thousand to four or five thousand. 

Continuing with the 1806 roll, the next subdivision of intermarried citizens 
begins with No. 14249 and runs to and inclusive of 15211. The number of 
persons appearing upon the approved roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw 
Nation, including those stricken therefrom, is 16,227, while the number upon 
the tribal roll is that noted above. (This does not include newborns and minors 
under the acts of March 3, lf)05, and April 26, 1906.) 

The number of Intermarried persons upon the 1896 census roll is 964, whereas 
the number upon the approved roll, including those stricken therefrom, is 1,672. 

The next subdivision is that of freedmen. I find frequently the words 
" Chickasaw freedmen " stamped in blue after the names of persons. This 
was done by the Dawes Commission. However, these persons were subse- 
quently enrolled as Choctaw freedmen upon the final roll of Choctaw freedmen 
as approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The number of Choctaw freedmen 
on this roll Is 3,742. 

Memorandum rolls from which J896 Choctaw roU was made up. — The census 
enumerators prepared separate books for citizens by blood, intermarried citizens, 
and freedmen. In books relating to the first class the pages were ruled in 
columns, showing number, name, quantum of Indian blood, age to nearest birth- 
day, sex, relation to head of family, whether married or single, and whether 
able to speak English. Generally speaklBg, these columns were all fairly well 
filled out, but in some cases the degree or Indian blood was not shown. These 
county rolls were copied into a large book which became the official roll of the 
tribe. Most of the data appearing upon the enumerators' rolls was not noted 
m^n the roll which was indexed and used by the commission. 

Oa the county rolls names were occasionally lined out and the word " dead " 
noted without anything to show when or by what authority it was done. In 
the course of the work it was also claimed occasionally by Individuals that 
even though their names did not appear upon the roll as finally made up that 
they were enrolled by the census enumerators. See departmental decision In 
case of Nancy J. Murphy and Charlotta Murphy (January 12, 1907; I. T. D., 
16978—1906) : 

" Nancy Jane Murphy and Charlotta Murphy were not enrolled upon the 
r^ular tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation In the possession of this office, 
but claimed to have been enrolled by the census enumerators for Atoka County, 
and her name was. found on page 244 of a roll designated as 'Choctaw census 
roll No. O.' This roll was forwarded to the department for consideration In 
connection with motions for rehearing of this case, and while the department 
does not go at length into the merits of such entry of the names of applicants 
upon rolls of this character it is stated : * It Is apparent that none of the appli- 
cants are entitled to enrollment The petitions are therefore denied.* This 
after reciting the character of the roll and the appearance of the names of some 
of the parties to the petition thereon." 

In some cases, particularly in the roll of Eagle County, names were entered 
in pencil without numbers, and some of them subsequently crossed out. In 
other places whole pages were entered without numbers and stricken off without 
explanation. Some of the work was exceedingly bad and anything but sys- 
tematic, resembling the pages of a schoolboy's spelling lesson as the same might 
appear after having been written in a schoolboy hand and words scratched off. 

On page 38 of Blue County book I find four names scratched off without 
explanation. These names Were probably stricken off because they were entered 
upon another page. 

In the book for Red River County I find about 25 loose sheets, on which are 
names writt^i In pencil not showing the usual data and in some cases hardly 
decipherable, in others fairly plain. 



Digitized by V^OOQIC^ 



196 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

In the book for SkullyvUle County I find a list of names in pencil in back 
part of book, some of which have been lined out, showing age of person but not 
including them in the names of members In fact, the numbers were generally 
omitted in this book as well as the information called for outside of the column 
entitled "Age." Here, as elsewhere, names are frequently lined out without 
explanation; some times a whole page will appear in this condition. The 
handwriting is not uniform ; pages are torn ; evidently school children have had 
access to the book, and have used it to practice lessons in penmanship. 

In this same book I find a number of names of persons with their age9 
entered upon the inside of the last cover — for example, Sydney Bond and 
others. These names may have been added by some one who thought he had 
authority or some one may have been continuing his lesson in penmanship In 
the back of the book. 

" O " ro7/.— This is a book pertaining to citizenship with or without authority. 
Entries are made in it relative to persons of Choctaw blood, freedmen, and 
Intermarried persons. References are made, lines drawn off, remarks, etc. 
The difl'erent classes of persons are numbered as a general rule, for example, 
the number of Choctaws running up to 701 on page 52 and Is continued on page 
100, from which it runs on to 1,049, on page lOS. Occasionally a name Is lined 
out Ages are given and addresses. Sometimes only the age is given. The 
names are readily recognized as belonging to Choctaw families. About six 
pages have been cut out. The portion of the pages which is left show that 
they were well filled, at least from top to bottom with writing. 

This book contains on the Inside of the cover the name of J. C. Folsom and 
the stamp of the Department of the Interior, Indian Territory division, re- 
ceived September 7, 1906, Inclosure No. 6 of No. 15978. On the next page is 
found what appears to be the title of the book, as follows: "Choctaw census 
roll No. O." This Is probably in the writing of Mr. Hopkins, formerly a clerk 
of the commission, but upon the outside cover, which Is of leather and of 
ancient appearanc*^. are the following words in red ink : " Choctaws residing 
In Chickasaw Nation. Memorandum roll. *0* roll." While the writing hi 
this book is not very legible, still it Is fairly so. The person who kept the book 
evidently made considerable effort to« make some record of the people whose 
names appear thereon, particularly their age, residence, and family relation- 
ship. With the exception of the pages which were cut out, referred to above, 
the book is in a good state of presevatlon. It contains 264 numbered pages. 
It also contains a list entitled "Doubtful white claim citizenship" — ^also entitled 
" Doubtful citizens " — rimning from page 254 to 261, Inclusive. The last three 
pages of the book are devoted to domestic matters. For example, on page 262 
is a running account covering the period from January, 1890, to November, 
1893, showing Jesse Wheeler debtor to J. C. Folsom In various amounts to a 
total of $407.35. On the next page Is a detailed description relating to painting 
and paint brushes. On the last page are " Directions for painting peacock." 

Elsewhere In the book, on page 236, are cooking recipes for making buns, 
BYench rolls, preparing brine to preserve butter, to pickle tomatoes, to prepare 
chopped pickles, chill sauce, and tomato catsup. These facts are noted to 
illustrate the method of keeping and preserving official records. It should be 
added that the commission was never able to ascertain positively by whom this 
book was prepared or for what purpose. On the second page of the first flyleaf 
is found the following: "Presented to the National Party for the county of 
Atoka, C. N." 

This roll was not indexed by the commission or used as a book of reference 
in making the rolls. It was forwarded to the department for inspection in 
connection with a report In the Choctaw •case of Nancy Jane Murphy et al., 
referred to heretofore. 

1896 census roll No. 2. — This roll is contained In a large book, which is in 
general appearance and size a duplicate of the regular 1896 roll. On the back 
of It is the title "Census roll of Choctaw Nation, circuit court first district; 
taken November, 1896i" This book, generally speaking, has a neat appearance, 
but there are various irregularities in it. Names are entered in pencil, others 
are stricken off without explanation. It shows the names of heads of families 
and children, with ages of all. The names are entered by counties. Mr. Telle 
and Mr. Lewis state that in some respects they thought this roll was probably 
better than roll No. 1. The history of the roll, by whom prepared, etc, has 
never been definitely ascertained. It was not indexed by the commission and 
was not regularly used In determining whether the names of applicants 
appeared upon the tribal roll. Reference was made to it in extreme cases. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. ' 197 

Where persons were ur^rent In Insisting that their names were upon the tribal 
roll. It should be added, however, that the names were alphabetically arranged 
in this book. 

1893 leased district payment roll, — This roll consists of a collection of bound 
books, upon the backs of which are the names of the Choctaw counties, aggre- 
gating about 18, Including the list of Choctaws residing In the Chickasaw 
district. 

The pages are divided into columns, showing number, heads of families, 
children, male and female, age, to whom paid and amount paid to each. There 
Is also a column for remarks. [It must be ascertained when this roll was 
made; that is to say, whether a census was taken prior to 1893 or whether the 
roll was made up as the money was paid out: what act of the council author- 
ized the roll and where said act can be found.] The amount paid each citizen 
was $108. The notation under the head of remarks shows that the money was 
paid by check. Sometimes there is a notation showing to whom the check was 
paid : that is to say, checks were actually paid to persons other than the ones 
who are listed on the rolls as entitled to the money. The pages as a rule are 
neat in appearance, but the handwriting Is not always the same. Occasionally 
entries are made in i)encll, but not frequently. Now and then a name has been 
erased. The column entitled "To whom paid" is frequently filled out In a 
handwriting which Is not that of the person who prepared the original roll. 

On page 29 I find the names of Mary Alice Johnson and Martha B. Johnson, 
ages, respectively, 14 and 12 years. In the column for remarks the following 
notation appears after these names: " Father white; mother dead; think father 
sold check before he left town." Query. Were parties held up and refused 
enrollment unless they would consent to assign their right to the payment? So 
charged in case of J. W. F. Howard, departmental letters, which are dated 
a9 follows: June 26, 1905 (I. T. D. 5231-1905), July 7, 1906 (ll()i28, 13594- 
1905), March 1, 1907. 

On page 42 the name of Alex McKlnney anpears opposite No.423,bnt the space 
for amount paid after his name is blank. Under the head of remarks are notes 
which have been partially scratched off, but which are sufficiently legible to 
show thpt A. McKlnney failed to prove his right presumably to citizenship. 

(Ascertain If this person was finally enrolled. His age was 39 in 1893, resi- 
dent of SkullyviUe County. Impossible to identify the Alex. McKlnney referred 
to above as either applicant for enrollment or enrolled citizen of Choctaw 
Nation.) 

Sometimes It appears that the check was handed to the husband. In the 
SkullyviUe roll Is a letter dated October 23,. 1896, at Cameron, Ind. T., addressed 
to Gov. McCurtain, from T. J. Sexton, relative to Mr. George W. (?) Bustin. 
The roll does not show freedmen or intermarried whites. Neither shared In the 
payment. 

Chorfair rrnsufi mil of JSS5. — For history of this roll see Betty Lewis report 
of January 24, 1903. The roll consists of volumes bearing names of counties, 
entitled on back" " Census of 1885, Atoka County," etc. Title on cover same; 
one volume for each county: indexed betwen January and April 1, 1903. 

The pages contain columns showing names, ages, sex, race, occupation, number 
of live stock, and amount of agricultural products, together with a column for 
areas and other Information. In the column last referred to is sometimes 
noted "Choctaw by blood": other times, "citizens by adoption." These rolls are 
well bound and in good condition. The persons enrolled thereon are numbered; 
names not arranged alpbnbetically. The book for Atoka County has a slip 
found in it unsigned, reading as follows: "Atoka County, omitted to record In 
the book. James Gibson's family. 3 children. Harris Botosh. 3 children." 

Nothing is shown on the slip which will serve to identify the children. The 
total of all classes for Atoka County is 1,247. 

18H5 roll, Eufjle County. — The same remarks apply, generally, as those noted 
In connection with Atoka County, but persons are not numbered. The num- 
bers are footed up at tha bottom of each page for each class. I am Informed 
that no act has been found authorizing this roll. Presumably the act. If 
printed, will be found in the Choctaw law books for the period including the 
year 1^. It may be that law was never reduced to print. The census taker 
for Eagle Countv^ was Ben Watts, who made his return over his signature 
May 11, 1885. This book was evidently retained in the possession of the 
census taker or at least it was withheld from the national secretary for several 
months, the latter having attached a note to the book for Eagle Cpunty. dated 
February 8, 1886, certifying that all of the books of the second district never 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



198 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

appeared at his office until that day. His certificate concludes: *' It seems that 
the book has been on the road to this office for several months." The national 
secretary was Thompson McKinney. He also makes the following statement: 
"The foregoing census of Eagle County Is filed in my office this 8th day of 
February, 1886.*' 

1885, Blue County. — Same general remarks as above. Name on page 29, 
No. 418, Bessand Durant, crossed out and no explanation. Detached slip in 
this book reads as follows: *' Omitted to record in the book, Blue County: 
Orleana Tumbull, 10; Robert Turnbull. 8; Rosa Tumbull, 2; Bennie Hunter, 
child Willie Bennie Hunter, 1 week." This statement is unsigned. . 

1885, Gaines County. — Special comment unnecessary, except that column for 
other information generally neglected, although not always so. Filed with 
national secretary September 21, 1885. 

1885, Towaon County. — Special comment unnecessary, exc^t that column for 
other Information is vacant almost without exception. Certificate of Ben 
Watkins, July 26, 1885. 

1885, Tohucksy County. — Special comment unnecessary. 

1885, Boktuklo County.— FWed with national secretary, February 8, 1886, Bea 
Watkins, census commissioner. 

1885, Cedar County.— Filed with national secretary February 8, 1886, Ben 
Watkins, census conunissloner. 

1885, Kiamitia County. — Certified to by S. D. Hotema, county and iM*obate 
judge Klamltla County, July, 16, 1885. Filed with national secretary October 
7, 1885. 

The majority of books examined appear upon the whole neat. Each book 
indicates from the appearance that the names were written at one time, as 
might probably be the case where at one sitting a person would copy from 
lists prepared in field work. Regularity of the writing certainly indicates that 
the names were not entered during the taking of the census. 

This Is the earliest Choctaw roll in the possession of the commission, but 
there Is a roll or registration lists of Choctaw freedmen which purports to 
show the ones who selected to accept the hundred-dollar payment provided for 
in article 2 of the treaty of 1866. This book was not Indexed, but was actually 
referred to, as It was of some value in corroborating testimony. This roll 
was not regarded In any way as a citizenship roll. 

1896, Chickasaw census roll. — This roll consists of typewritten pages securely 
bound. The first page is scarcely readable at this time, but a duplicate waa 
made of It some time ago by using a reading glass. The second page Is very- 
dim, but can be deciphered. The other pages are a little plainer. The roll 
shows only the county and the names of the members. The first part of the 
roll relates to members by blood. Following their names are numbers In blue. 
Indicating census records of the Dawes Commission. On page 40 is the name of 
Amanda Hays and the word "error" written after it, and the following un- 
signed note api>ears upon the page in connection therewith: "Amos H. Hays 
says there is only one Amanda in this family." I am Informed that this wa» 
probably written by Mr. Hopkins of the Dawes Commission. Occasionally other 
names are written in In pencil, possibly by clerks of the Dawes Commission. 
On page 45, In connection with the Leader family, this note appears: "Tandy 
Walker says all are Creeks or Cherokees." Like notation Is made on page 46 
In connection with the name of Ed I^eader and others. The notation was prol)- 
ably made by Mr. Beall, as I am informed. The word " dead " is occasionally 
noted and given names are sometimes added. These notes are never signed. 
Take, for instance, on page 50, after the name of Morgan Sealy is written 
" Mary Ann," and nothing to show why It was done. The word " dead " fre- 
quently occurs In stamped letters place<l upon the roll by employees of the 
commission. This roll bears numerous pencil notes unsigned. The number of 
members is not shown. As the roll Is typewritten, it must, of course, have 
been transcribed from original lists or schedules. This was actually a fact, as 
some of the lists are on file with the commission. 

Following the members by blood is a list of members by Intermarriage witli 
the same general arrangement of counties. There is also a list of citizens by 
Intermarriage residing In the Choctaw Nation. Following this is a "doubtful 
list.'* On page 84 I find, after the name of Zula J. Story, "Admitted by U. S. 
Court" After the name of Mary J. James, " Denied by U. S. Court." Begin- 
ning on page 85 is found a list of names of members of the Chickasaw Tribe of 
Indians, both by blood and intermarriage, registered under an act of the Chicka- 
saw Legislature approved July 31, 1897. Frequent notations are also found oa 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



• FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 199 

this list, written iu pencil. A number of these notes are In Mr. Beall's writing, 
but Comniissiouer McKennon's handwriting also appears on the roll. 

This roll was obtained by the commission late in 1S97 or early in 1898 and 
prior to the beginning of the work of the enrollment in the field. When the roll 
came into the possession of the commission it was bound only with a paper back, 
and it was found necessary to rebiud it to protect it. Date when index was 
completed is not positively known. Index may have been prepared by tribal 
authorities. All in writing. 

1893. Chickasaw pay roll No, 1. — Roll now well bound, but cover supplied by 
Dawes Commission. Appearance of page indicates poor work in making roll. 
A number of pages were pasted iu. On one is found the following: "These 
leaves that are inclosed was mistake and I have copied it over. Scotland 
Hawkins." The enrollment begins with name of Nelson Chigley and family, 
with total number of same; then follows other families. The first 106 pages 
are in a very bad condition. Names are stricken out without explanation, 
amounts paid are not shown, but on page 105 Is a list of the members without 
explanation, concluding with one which is designated as amount paid being 
$538,784.30. 

Beginning on page 107 there seems to be a reproduction of the rolls and some 
attempt has been made to arrange the names iu alphabetical order. They seem 
to be so arranged as a general rule. These pages do not show the ages of the 
members nor any facts concerning them. The general arrangement indicates, 
and it is so understood by those familiar with the roll that the names occurring 
in the right-hand column show the persons to whom the payment was actually 
' made. It is worthy of comment that many payments were made to Nelson 
Chigley and William Bennie. Chigley received payments for members of his 
own family, but judging from the entries he must have received payments for 
many other persons. It also frequently appears that Scott Hawkins, the party 
referred to above as inserting the new leaves, frequently receives payments for 
various persons. 

Beginning on page 107 and running over to the bottom of page 111 it is found 
that Nelson Chigley received payment for 16 persons, 5 of whom were of tlie 
name of Chigley. On the same pages the name of William Rennie api)ears 38 
times, while the mime of Scott Hawkins as payee occurs 8 times. On later 
imges the names of these three persons occur frequently. For example, on page 
117 Chigley drew 4 payments, Hawkins 8, and Ilennie 8 out of a total of 29 on 
that page. Another person to whom frequent payments were miide was 
" H. H. B." On page 119 Rennie appears 10 times and Hawkins about the 
same number. The same thing is true on other pages which follow. Likewise 
of Chigley and the said H. H. B., the latter name apix?aring In full on iwige 125 
as H. H. Burrls. On this page is found the name of Wyatt Mahardy. Take 
this up' in conn^tion with the case of Sam Mahardy. or Mahada. 

Page 125 shows 13 payments to Rennie. Page 127 shows 4 payments te 
Rennie; Nelson Chigley 8 on page 129; i)age. 130, William Rennie draws 12, 
the balance to ** H. H. B." Page 131, Jennie 5 ; page 132, Nelson Chigley drew 
4 paymenis for members of Thomas family. Rennie drew 4 times on the same 
page. On page 133 Rennie drew 6 times; i)age 134 Rennie drew 11 times; page 
135 is the statement showing leased district receipts. 

Total amount received from subtreasury $735,662.50 

Attorneys* fees 165,519.49 

Balance 570, 143. 01 

Kxpense of census and disbursement 2, 584. 30 

Balance 567, 558. 71 

Per capita 4,246, at $130, total 551,980.00 

Reserve fund 15, 578. 71 

Beginning on page 136 is the following title: "List of names added to the 
census roll agreeable to an act approved " (date not given). 

On pages that follow Chigley frequently drew payments; also M. V. O. 
(Martin V. Cheadle). Taken as a whole this is a rather disreputable looking 
affair. Book No. 1 not indexed. When used in connection with enrollment 
work the names in the book were examined in connection with the cases under 
consideration. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



200 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Chickasaw 1893 pay roll \o. 2. — Now well bound In new binding furnished 
by Dawes Commission. The appeamnce of this book is even more disreputable 
than boolc No. 1. Names are lined out without explanation. Payments are 
frequently, in fact almost as a rule, made to persons other than the members 
to whom due. Bbcamples of names crossed out are found on page 3, where six 
members of the Beeler family are lined out. See also page 5, where eight 
members of the Parker family are lined out. Numerous Instances where pay- 
ments were made to other than the members entitled to same are deserving 
of marked attention. Page 9, six members of the Hamblln family were stricken 
off, while four members were retained. In this book J. C. Kemp frequently 
receives the money, but Scott Hawkins and Reraile come in for a generous 
share. On page 14 there are 14 names stricken off without explanation. On 
page 15 there are 11 panics which were s'ricken off. In the case of Emma 
and E3va Fllpplngs a note is made as follows: "These people came directly 
from Arkansas: claim they are relation to these Moores." After the names 
of the Riddle family, which are stricken off. "These people citizenship Is 
doubted." 

Page 30, B. W. Carter draws seven shares for members of the Adkins fam- 
ily; he drew several also on page 31 and also on page 32. G. B. Hester draws 
nine times on page 32. Page 41, B. W. Carter draws six shares. This roll, 
as the former, shows continuing evidence that the citizens assigned their pay- 
ments. A comparatively small number of men whose names have been noted 
were assignees. 

Page 53. " C. D. C." received seven payments for members of the Campbell • 
family. The name of the assignee Is frequently Indicated only by initials. 
The fact that this roll was not numbered after the first 495 names were listed 
made it easier to Insert names. 

In conclusion, books 1 and 2 of the 1893 payment rolls In the Chickasaw 
Nation were poorly kept, and reflected very much upon the ability of the 
Chickasaw authorities to transact business In a systematic manner. I am 
Inclined to think that the entry of a name upon this roll should no*^ count 
particularly in favor of an Individual. I am also Inclined to think that the 
omission of a name from the roll might have resulted from corrupt causes. The 
allegations presented by J. W. F. Howard are not improbable, generally 
speaking. On the flyleaf of the last page of the book. No. 229, are a number 
of names, and in four cases payment was made to William Rennle. It seems 
remarkable that the name of the Wolf family should have been entered here 
fn such an irregular manner. The name of Jonas Wolf and others appear. 
Payment was made to Gov. Wolf. If such an Irregularity occurred In the 
enrollment of Gov. Wolf, what must have occurred In the case of some humble 
citizen? 

Maytuhby roll. No. /.—Entitled "Names of Chickasaw families in Choc'aw 
Nation registered by Peter Maytuhby." The nnmes numbered consecutively, 
written on legal-cnp* paper, followed by columns headed. " Husbnnd." " Wife." 
" Children." Number of persons of each kind footed In column. Writing excel- 
lent, pages In bad condition: occasionally, but rarely, names stricken out; 
another written In place. This roll Is said to be a part of the 1893 payment 
roll, but It contains no evidence on Its face showing to wha*^ it relates. The 
handwriting continues uniform for several pages, then changes to another 
handwriting and then to another. The numbers have been rewritten —♦^hat Is, 
corrected — to show change In total. The name of Joseph Nelson is lined out 
without explanation : the name of Nelson Thompson, or Johnson. No. 389, and 
No. 390. not legible, lined ou^ with no explanation. The name of Susan Under- 
wood added In pencil at last pnge of part 1. 

May tubby roll No. 2. J SOS. — Names on loose sheets of paper, badly broken; 
one Is a letterhead of H. H. Burris, national auditor: another has the same 
heading except that H. H. Burris Is lined out and C. D. Carter substituted. 
This part In precarious condition. Commission has tyi>ewrltten copies of this 
roll, both parts. This roll was received by the ^rommlsslou in September or 
October, 1898. They were not arranged in alphaboHcnl order r.nd were vever 
Indexed. When reference was mnde to them by the Dawes Commission the 
whole list had to be examined. Part 1 has 402 nnmlwMcd names. There are 
st^niethlng like 40 additional names. Never In any case have I found a nota- 
tion Initialed or signed and in but two cases havo I found thus far any 
ex pin nation of the lining out of a name. 

Tefthatubby roll.— The following Is a correct list of the names of Chickasaws 
refilFtered by leshatubby In the Choctaw Nation und'.»r act of June 20, 1893. 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 201 

Tho sheets are subdivided into columns for name, number of men, number ol 
women, number of boys, number of girls, and for cotaJs. Two names are lined 
out on page 1 and written in modified form; for instance, the name of Alex- 
ander Ferryman is changed to Agnes Ferryman. The name of Julius Bond Is 
lined out on the second page. The names a re not numbered. The name of Watie 
Nicholas is also lined out on page 3. The name of Solomon Owens and Mar>' 
Myfrs lined out on page 4; also that of Viney Folsom. This roll does no*t 
show amount paid out or to whom payment was made. It consists of two 
sheets of legal-cap paper; some of the names are written in inlc, others in 
pencil. The word " paid " is generally written or indicated by ditto marits in 
the column for totals. This roll was used by the Dawes Commissoii in enroll- 
meut work by referring to the whole roll, but was never indexe*!. 

187S Chickasaw annuity roZ/.— Delivered to CJommission to Five Civilized 
Tribes late in 1902 or early in 1903. (See Betty Lewis report of Jan. 24, 
1903.) This roll consists of leaves, some of which are written upon legal cap, 
others upon ordinary large sheets; as received by the commission these leaves 
were not bound. Subsequently paper covers were attached bearing notations 
fltiowlng district or county, date, and sometimes by whom made. General plan 
of roll, but not so carried out in all cases: Name of county at top, and columni 
for men, women, children* and totals. List for Masholatubby district, Choctaw 
Nation (Chiclcasaws living in Choctaw Nation) begins with Coal County. 
Names arranged in alphabetical order, not consecuitvely, numbers to left of 
name; word "paid" occurs after some of the names, but many are followed 
by name of person to whom pliyment was made ; although the word ** paid " 
does not always appear, the name of some payee invariably does. Indian 
names frequent; payee generally some other person than the enrolled citizen; 
to whom paid and name of payee in different ink and possibly in different 
handwriting. Frequent payments made to " Killcrease." also to Ben Jones and 
William L. Byrd. (Query: Was Byrd governor of the nation?) Rarely ever 
does the citizen appear as a payee. The name of Sebourne Underwood added 
without number in different-colored ink. Not all the names are numbered. 
System of numbering indicates names were taken from a numbered list and 
arranged in alphabetical order retaining numbers; pages uniformly neat: hand- 
writing plain. 

The second county is Gaines. The names of Pitchlynn, J. N., and Pitchlynn, 
H. R., written in different ink and possibly different writing from that usually 
employed. Nearly all of some pages show payment to said Killcrease. Amount 
of payment not shown. The name of Otemaya crossed out and words " in 
SkuUyville" added in different ink and not signed. After name of Noel Peter 
are found the words " Not known as Chickasaws," in different-colored ink. 
Following this is further note, "This person was afterward found to be a 
Chickasaw and his annuity was sent to J. J. McAlester." 

Following Gaines County comes San Bols County, in which said Noel Peter 
is listed. The name of Turner Brashears appears written in pencil: after 
it the words " wife and children " in ink, and above the latter words the 
words "not allowed.*' At the end of same line appears name of Robert L. 
Boyd, lined out without explanation. The next name after Turner Brashears 
is that of Catherine Miller, appearing in pencil, followed by the name of George 
D. James in the column of payee. Ui)on this page Killcrease draws 11 pay- 
ments out of a total of 12. 

Under Skullyvllle County is also found. In addition to the names of said 
Turner and Miller, the name of N. F. or U. F. Krebs, not numbered, and writ- 
ten in different hand and different Ink. All payments on this page to Killcrease 
and McAlester. 

Next follows Sugar Ix)af County. Out of a total of 17 payments on the first 
page of this county 15 were made to Killcrease, the others to Ben Jones. Fol- 
lowing the list of names Is the word " recapitulated " and a total of 817. from 
which 5 is subtracted without explanation, leaving a total of 812. Following 
this is a certificate: "I hereby certify that the foregoing Is a correct list of 
persons registered in Masholatubby district, Choctaw Nation, for Chickasaw 
annuity, 1878, December 19, 1878. Simpson Killcrease, register of Mashola- 
tubby district, Choctaw Nation." 

Recapitulating, 812, total. 

Albert W. Perry, 3, and 815. 

(Note. — The fact that this registry was made by Simpson Killcrease explains. 
In all probability, who the Killcrease was who appears as payee In a large 
majority of cases. It is observed that the enumerator signs his name KUJpr^s©, 



202 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 



whereas the name of the payee Is always noted in a different bat uniform 
writing as Kilcrease. The total number registered in the Ma shola tubby dlfih 
trict is approximately 364, but payment was made to 812 or 815. The names 
of women do not appear on the 1878 annuity roll unless separate heads of 
families or living alone; at leaet this seems to be the case. Names of children 
do not appear, only the number of them t>eing given. This is important be- 
cause we have no rolls between the years 1878 and 1893 in the Chickasaw 
Nation, a period of 15 years. During this lapse of time many minors became 
adults, as a matter of course, as well as heads of families. Under the ruling 
of the Secretary of the Interior a person could not be enrolled as a Choctaw 
or Chickasaw whose name did not appear upon tribal rolls or In some act or 
decree of admission or enrollment unless they were minors when the roll was 
prepared.) 

Capt, Henderson Greenwood's annuity rolL December 19, 1878, Tishomingo 
County. — The names on this roll are numbered consecutively, but not arranged 
in alphabetical order. Tbere are columns following the names, but nothing to 
Indicate the purpose of each column. Evidently, however, they are designed 
to show the number of persons in the family; that is to say, father, mother, 
and number of children, male and female, respectively. The last column Is 
reserved for the names of payees. This county contains a list of 246 names, 
the recapitulation showing 774 persons, to which is added the name of Albert 
Gamble, making 775. The roll Is certified to by Henderson Greenwood, Decem- 
ber 19, 1878, as register of Tishomingo County. 

Register of Pontotoc County, Chickasaw Nation, for annuity of 1878, — Here 
the names are numbered consecutively but not arranged alphabetically. There 
are three columns, one for males, one for females, and one for totals, in 
each family. Apparently none but heads of families or persons living alone 
appear on lists. With one or two exceptions all payments on the first page 
were made to William L. Byrd. Nearly all on the second page were made 
to the same person, with the exception of three to Phillips and one to Rooks. 
After the name of Mrs. Wilson Frazler, No. 60, In the column for total 
the number 4 Is stricken out and the number 3 appears above It, followed 
by the notation, "Person stricken off," unsigned. After the name of James 
Priddy, No. 112, the numbers 3, 2, and 5, showing number of males, females, 
and total, respectively, are stricken out and the number 1 is substituted for 
males and 1 for females, followed by the notation "Allowed," then " Old man 
allowed ; wife and children are not." This roll, as well as that for Tishomingo 
County, does not show the age of persons, nor does the Masholatubby roll or the 
1893 rolls. The 1878 roll does not always show whether persons are adults or 
minors, but in some cases columns appear designated as for children. Total 
number of names for Pontotoc County Is 450. Total number of persons 1,488, 
to which five others were added, making a total of 1,493. This roll was certi- 
fied by F. Frazler, register of Pontotoc County, Chickasaw Nation, Decem- 
ber 19. 1878. 

Pickens Counly, 1878, — The first page of this roll is in poor condition; names 
written In lead pencil Jiml "paid"; sometimes a plus sign follows the name. 
Numbers to right apparently indicate number of persons in family. Total on 
first i>age 48. The purpose of the first page is not clear, and it may have been 
regarded as a teniix)rary list. The second page begins with a list of names, 
starting with No. 1. These names are arranged in alphabetical order and are 
numbered consecutively. Columns for male heads of families, female heads of 
families,' male children, female children, male orphans, female orphans, were 
extensive subdivions, evidently made to provide for enumeration of grand- 
children. Here, as before, payment Is frequently made to other than the 
persons on the roll. Total number, 727, with 4 deductions; net, 723; made by 
C. J. Hancock, register of Pickens County. On last page of this roll is the 
name J. C. Handcock, and following It are the names of — 



John Fitch ue __. 
Overton Love __- 
Eastman Lewis . 
William Morris. 



J. Whitsvill 2 

Rhine Walker 4 



Total. 



25 



Taylor Persevlll 2 

which Is multiplied by 975, and other computations not explained. 

(Query: Were the names of these 8 persons entered on the Index prepared 
by the Dawes Commission? The Dawes Commission did not prepare an index 
of the 1878 annuity roll. Some of said rolls were already arranged In alpha- 
Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CrVlTJLZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 



2oa 



betieal order. It was the practice of the commisBlou in consulting this roll to 
examine the roll itself. This refers to all counties of this roll in the possession 
of the commission.) 

Pushmataha district, Choctaw Nation. — Atoka County. — Columns showing 
man, woman, children, total. This list is not arranged in alphabetical order. 
The names are numbered consecutively. The name of the payee is shown. On 
a number of pages all. or nearly all, payments were made to Joe Phillips. This 
is true for several pages. Occasionally the name of the payee is written in 
lead pencil. Number 198 of this district, Charley I^inguine. or Charley San- 
guine, lined out and no explanation ; lilcewise Bena Mashoya, No. 240. 

Kiamitia County begins with No. 180 of this list. Blue County begins at 
No. 255. Jens Benton, three members of family, all lined out without ex- 
planation. Lilcewise No. 256, Francis Battice, three members; no explanation. 
No. 258, John Lewis, noted in different ink "Not allowed." But after it is 
the further notation in pencil, "Paid Harkins"; eight members in this family. 
Nos. 266, 267, ajid 268, Jackson. Tobias, and Osbom Frazier, and No. 271, 
Esau Frazier, lined out; also families of said persons; no explanation. No. 
273,,Melvina Folsom, lined out and no explanation. Likewise No. 296, Melvina 
Lewis, lined out, yet after it appears " Paid G. Harkins." No. 304, Felix Henry 
and f&mily, total 3 persons, lined out; no explanation. 

Total number in Pushmataha district, 1,002; space left for register to sign 
certificate left blank; following blank form of certificate are the names of a 
number of persons, making a total of 1,034. Here, as elsewhere, it is to be 
borne in mind that names of children do not appear and that names of women 
when members of a family having a recognized citizen as its head are omitted. 

On the back of the fiyleaf of the last page of this roll is the name of E. J. 
Pitchlynn; following it is a list of members and the sum of same. Following 
this in faint lead pencil are the names of — 



Moses Lowring- 
Dixon Durant— 
Emily Fletcher. 



Mrs. Joel Kemp 2 

Tom McGee 1 

Sum of all 1,050 



No explanation as to these names; if part of roll, not regularly so. 

Panola County, — ^This roll consists of sheets of legal-cap paper: the paper is 
old and in rather poor condition, but generally speaking writing is legible. It 
was prepared by David W. Colbert. The roll has columns for heads of families 
and number of children and total. The heads of families are numbered in 
the right-liand margin, contrary to the usual practice. Total number of i)er- 
sons. 498; certified to by David W. Colbert under date of December 11). 1S78. 
One leaf of roll is detached and given names of several citizens torn off. 

(Query: What was the amount paid per capita and under what act?) 

(Note. It must have required much T>ainstaking effort for the employees of 
the Dawes Commission to examine this list. It is not alphabetically arranged.) 

The commission has typewritten copies of the 1S78 annuity roll. 

How many counties are short? How many should be? Name counties not 
given ; also those given. 

(There are four Chickasaw counties: Pontotoc, Panola, Tishomingo, and 
Pickens, beside the Chickasaws living in the Choctaw Nation. There are in the 
possession of this oflJce rolls showing the 1878 annuity payment in all of these 
counties. The Choctaw Nation was, however, divided into three districts, and 
the office has rolls showing this payment in two districts only, Masholatubby 
district and Pushmataha district. A little later the nation was divided by the 
Chickasaws for registration into first, second, and third districts, but it is not 
known how these districts compare with Pushmataha and Masholatubby's dis- 
tricts above referred to, or whether the nation might have been divided into 
only the two districts at the time of the 1878 payment.) 

Method of making and filing census cards in Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. 

Q. Were all census cards made up from typewritten records? How many 
exceptions to this rule? — A. Many of the cards, particularly during the years 
1898 and 1899, were made up by some member of the commission and an as- 
sistant. The commissioner would swear the witness or applicant and ask 
the questions. The exact answers would not be noted, but the substance of the 
same as understood by the commission and his assistant would be noted upon 
the cards in so far as necessary to supply the data provided for. The cards, 
with the exception of the first 50 Chickasaw and the first 10 or 12 Choctaw 
cards, bear notation in the lower right-hand corner, showing the date of the 
making of the application, which date for the first years, speaking approxl- 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



204 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

niately, coincided with the making of the card. Notations were also made 
upon the card showing action by the commission and by the department. The 
curds do not, however, in all cases show every action. This is said, bearing 
in mind that it was the aim of the commission, to note the last action of the 
department in all cases. 

The regular worli of making cards was carried out by means of cards of 
three classes: 

First. Straight cards upon which were listed those persons having tribal 
enrollment and having a prima facie right to enrollment and against whom 
no protest was made by the representatives of the tribes. 

Second. Doubtful cards on which were placed the names of persons showing 
tribal enrollment or not, as might be, whose cases were protested by the rep- 
resentatives of the tribes or were doubtful as to the showing made. For ex- 
ample, nonresidence, failure to prove Indian blood or adoption, and the like. 

Third. R cards upon which were listed the names of persons who either made 
no claim to tribal enrollment or who could make no showing of tribal recogni- 
tion and right to enrollment Generally speaking the people who were listed 
on these cards were people who were prima facie not entitled to enrollm^it. 

The letter " R " stood primarily for " Rejected," but in the course of a very 
short time this list was made to include cards where rejections had not 
occurred. Probably this series in its inc^tion was based upon decisions ren- 
dered by CommiSBioner McKennon when after a brief examination he im- 
mediately rendered a decision " Enrollment refused." 

Some of the persons whose names were listed upon " D " and " R ** cards 
were afterward found entitled to enrollment and after decisions were rendered 
in their favor their names were transferred to straight cards. Proper in- 
formation was placed upon such •*D" and "R" cards showing what disposi- 
tion was made of the cases and the number of the straight card to whicb 
their names were then transferred, so that it may occur in a pumber of cases 
that there are two cards for one name but not in the same series. 

As the cards are arranged at this day — that is to say, subsequent to the close 
of the work of enrollment — it will be found that as tliey are now sirranged 
there are separate boxes for the straight cards, the " D " cards and the " R " 
cards. There are approximately 6,084 straight Choctaw cards, 1,009 " D " cards, 
and 75fi " R " cards. 

The Commission to the Five Civillssed Tribes, under the act of Congress 
ar>i)roved June 10, 1S96, were directed to enroll persons found by them to be 
entitled to enrollment, but as a matter of fact they never got along sufficiently 
with the work to enroll any such persons. Subsequently under later acts per- 
sons who were found to be entitled were placed upon the rolls prepared by the 
commission. The final approved rolls contain the names of persons who were 
admitted by the commission in 1896 and no appeal taken. As to such persons 
no distinction was made as to whether notice was necessary to l)oth nations. 
Consequently there are a line of cases decided by the Dawes Commission where 
the right to enrollment was accorded without reference to notice and another 
line of cases decided by the citizenship court which were carried on appeal 
beyond the Dawes Commission where the doctrine of notice to both nations 
was followed. In other words, the work as a whole was disposed of with 
respect to i)ersons .admitted in 1806 under two different rules. 

Leanion Welch, Choctaw inter ma riie<i roll No. 1368. card No. 5883, enrolled 
a« a citizen by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation; right to enrollment based 
upon marriage with Ed E. Walker, recognized and enrolled citizen by blood 
of the Choctaw Nation, identified upon the 1893 pay roll; after his death in 
1896 his widow married William Welch, a white noncitizen. Compare the 
facts in this case with the views expressed by the Attorney General in the 
opinion of February 19, 1907, and by Mr.T>awrence,of the Department of Justice, 
in the memorandum prepared by him in the Mary Elizabeth Martin case, for 
the puriwse of determining whether those opinions were in harmony with the 
practice of the commission and of the department. I am Informed that inter- 
married citizens whose cases were similar to this case were uniformly enrolled 
by the commission. The fact that a subsequent marriage to a noncitizen was 
not reirarded under the ruling of the department as a bar to final enrollment 
upon the approved roll. 

One of the causes of the delay in the work was that numerous cases were 
held up upon the request of the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Nations under instructions from the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose 
of determining what would be the action of the citizenship court upon analo- 
gous cases. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 205 

(Note. — I have a list of cases where action was suspended and reference 
to letters ordering such action in my notes at Washington.) 

For opinion of citizenship court on this question see case of Thomas Brinnon 
(case No. 2S on South McAlester doclcet). Also opinion of department in the 
case of Thornton D. Pearce of May 21, 1904 (I. T. D., 406(^1904). The United 
States courts in Indian Territory also passed upon this question. See decision 
of Judge Clayton in the Robinson case. 

This woman referred to above — Leamon Welch — was finally enrolled, but the 
names of her two children by her white husband — Bertha and Elois Welch — 
were lined out and their enrollment was refused. This must have been done 
upon the theory that her citizenship was personal to her only. 

In this case there are two cards, one the original doubtful card and the other 
the final straight card upon which decision in favor of Leamon Welch is noted. 
The first card bears the stamp granted as to the mother and refused as to her 
other two children. 

With this memorandum furnish copy of straight card showing degree of In- 
dian blood; also copy of a Mississippi Choctaw R card showing degree of blood. 

Some provision should be made allowing persons who were identified as Mis- 
sifisippi Choctaws but who did not have the usual time to remove to the nation 
to move thereto and establish residence therein ; for example, there were several 
families who were identified within the last weelc preceding March 4, 1907, In 
whose cases removal to the nation was physically impossible before March 4, 
1907. 



Louana Bonaham. 
Oliver Sills. 
Lizzie Sills. 
Perry Silla 
Sallie Charlaa 
Minnie Charlas. 



Bettie Charlas. 
Louisa Charlas. 
James Charlaa 
Clemogene Farve. 
Elizabeth Farve. 
Mitchell C. Adams. 



The date of the identification of these persons was In February or March, 
1907, and consequently there was no time for their removal and for the commis- 
nioner to take evidence of their settlement in the nation before the final closing 
of the work. 

Note. — Refer to reports of Dawes Commission, showing number and pnge of 
same, where statistics may be found relative to — 

(a) Total number of Choctaw and Chickasaw applicants by blood and inter- 
marriage before the commission in 1896. 

(&) Number of each class admitted. 

(c) Number of each class denied. 

(d) Number of appealed cases. 

(e) Number of cases not appealed. 

(/) Number of cases and persons where decisions of the commission were 
affirmed. 

(g) Number of cases and persons where decisions were reversed. 

Pages 16 and 17 of the Ninth Annual Report of the Commission to the Five 
Civilized Tribes for the year 1902 give the information requested except as to 
number of cases involved before the commission in 1896 and the number of 
cases appealed and number not appealed. This latter information does not 
appear to have been prepared from the data, and it is impracticable to procure 
It at this time without a long and tedious examination of the 1896 applicationa 

Number of admitted Choctaws and Chickasaws : 

Number of granted Choctaw enrollment cases 5,320 

Number of persons enrolled as Choctaws by blood and inter- 
marriage 17, 899 

Number of cases refused 1, 750 

Number of persons refused as Choctaws by blood and inter- 
marriage 5, 201 

Total number cases 7,070 

Total number persons who were applicants for enrollment 

as Choctaws by blood and intermarriage 23, 100 

(This does not Include minor and newborn Choctaws under acts of Mar. 3, 
1905, and Apr. 26, 1906, and is estimated as nearly as may be without actual 
count) 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



206 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Number of granted Chickasaw enrollment cases 1, 800 

Number of persons enrolled as Chlckasaws by blood and inter- 
marriage 5, 707 

Number of cases refused 500 

Number of persons refused as Chickasaws by blood and inter- 
marriage 1, 793 

Total number cases : 2,300 

Total number of persons who were applicants for enroll- 
ment as Chickasaws by blood and intermarriage 7, 500 

(This, does not include newborn and minor Chickasaws under acts of Mar. 3. 
3905, and At)r. 26, 1906, and is estimated as nearly as may be without actoal 
count as to number of cases.) 

Number of rejected Mississippi Choctaw cards 7, 476 

Mississippi Choctaw cards sometimes show one head of family identified and 
other rejected, both alleging fnU. blood; sometimes one head of family is 
identified as a full blood, and other head and the children are denied. 

As an example where one parent was td«Dtified and one parent denied, with 
the children, we have the card of Calvin McMUlan, M. C. R., 4215. Here the 
wife only, Mollie McMillan, was identified. (See tttentified Mississippi Choctaw 
schedule, No. 210.) In this family there were 11 members, all of whom allege 
full blood, one of whom only was identified. 

As a result there may be cases where Mississippi Choctaws oi the half blood 
nnd upward, but less than full blood, have no recognized right to enrollment. 
What should be done with cases of this character, particularly where rvidence 
was established in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country prior to June 28, 1898? 
Perhaps in the most of such cases the applicants were, at the time of thelv 
applications, residents of Mississippi. In many cases, however, the families 
removed to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country after identification of one or more 
members. Should such Choctaw children receive no consideration? Ought not 
the Government to make an appropriation sufllcient at least to purchase 40 
acres of land for each of them? 

The quantum of blood alleged for heads of families on 62 rejected cards 
taken consecutively appears as follows: 

Heads of families alleging — 

One thirty-second 9 

Three sixty-fourths 1 

One sixteenth 24 

Three thirty-seconds 4. 2 

One-eighth 12 

Three-sixteenths 1 

One-fourth 1 

One-half 1 

Three-fourths 1 

Recapitulating, out of a total of 52 there are found to be only 4 heads 
of families who allege one-fourth or more Indian blood. The percentage of 
such rejected applicants would be a little over 7 per cent. 

Under the act of Congress of April 26, 1906, the minor children of the 
Lafontain family, although of mixed Indian blood, were enrolled as Mississii^i 
Choctaws. After the act of April 26, 1906, was construed by the department 
to admit of the enrollment of such mixed-blood children an effort was made 
in a portion of the cases — ^Just how many I am unable to state — to enroll the 
children where the parents tiad been enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws. There 
was not suflacient time, however, to go back over the cases of all identified and 
enrolled full-blood Choctaws and modify the decisions to meet the requirements 
of the new law. In this connection see opinion of Assistant Attorney General 
in the case of Addle Reed, James Charlas, minor son of Nicholas Charlas, 
whose Identification was approved March 4, 1907. 

In these last cases there was an opinion written and probably subsequent 
decision. Both were prepared by or with the assistance of Mr. Howell of the 
Assistant Attorney General's office. This difference is due to the fact that the 
enrollment of such children was predicated upon laws subsequent to the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement under which new applications were made. Upon 
the receipt of such applications the commission would dispose of the rights 
^f the parties as their merits might appear, but in the absence of new appli- 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 207 

eations under this subsequent law the commission did not, of Its own motion, 
reexamine analogous cases. 

Under the act of March 3, 1905, an unconscious injustice was perpetrated, 
owing to the fact that the law was drawn so as to accord the right to enroll- 
ment only to the children of persons theretofore on approved rolls, overlooking 
the fact that there were other persons whose cases were of equal merits which 
had not been decided simply because not reached, but which were ultimately 
granted. This condition of affairs made It impossible to extend full relief in 
all cases, but an effort was made to correct the defect in the law by a provision 
in the act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 137), whereby the right to enrollmont 
was extended not only to the new-born children of enrolled citizens but also 
to the new-born children of other citizens having pending applications. After 
the latter act the commission made special effort to go back and take onre of 
cases which could not receive attention under the act of March 3, 1905. 

Provisions were made in various statutes which were construed to require 
applications to be made within a limited time. The word ** application " strictly 
construed requires personal appearance, at least of the head of the family. 
In the course of the enrollment work, however, people from time to time would 
contend that they had filed applications. Many such persons had In fact 
written letters to the commission and the department, and not knowing Gov- 
ernment proceedings thoroughly, to other offices — for example, to the Indian 
agent. I have even been Informed by the officials of the United States court 
that people came frequently to them to make application. A question arose, 
therefore, as to what constituted an application within the meaning of the 
term as used In the law relating to enrollment. The index prepared by the 
Dawes Commission of persons who had made applications was confined to those 
persons who had made formal application, either In person or through some 
member of the family who appeared in person before some represent.ntive of 
the commission. 

I am informed that when persons were claiming to have made application 
by letter, either by their own act or by the act of others, the commission caused 
an examination to be made of the index of letters received in order to test the 
accuracy of the claim. During the course of the enrollment work letters were 
frequently received by the department, in which persons claimed to be entitled 
to enrollment; sometimes their claims were clearly indicated as to what persons 
they thought were entitled to enrollment: at other times their statements were 
vague and uncertain, and disclosed only that there was a member of the family 
for whom enrollment was desired. 'These letters were " referred to the Com- 
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes for appropriate action." Upon receipt of 
such letters the commission examined Its records to ascertain whether or not 
there was an existing application of record, but did not treat such letters as 
applications unless followed up by further communication or evidence. The 
position of the commission and of the department can best be understood 
perhaps by a reference to cases such as the Annie L. Dendy case. In adjudi- 
cating cases it was the practice of the commission to deny enrollment to per- 
sons whose names did not appear upon Its records as having made application 
In due time. In so doing no examination was made by the commission until 
the spring of 1906 of applications filed under the act of Jime 10, 1896. On 
the whole, the construction of the law relating to making of applications was 
rather strict, at least, until the Dendy case. 

The commission was not furnished by the tribal authorities with list of 
persons admitted by decrees of tribal courts and acts of tribal council, and 
no index was made of the names of such persons appearing In the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw law books. Doubtless in the majority of cases the names of 
such persons were entered upon the census or some other tribal rolls, but not 
necessarily so. 

Out of a total of 36 cards (Mississippi Choctaws) it was found that where 
one of the heads of the family was identified that all of the children were so 
identified In 29 cases ; In the other 7 cases It was found that the children were 
mixed bloods. The proportion of straight full-blood cases would therefore be 
to the whole number of cases as 29 to 36. Or, this would mean that if the 
mixed-blood children of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws are to be accorded any 
rights whatever at the expense of the Choctaw Nation or the United States 
that only about 18 or 20 per cent of the enrolled Mississippi Choctaw cases 
would have to be taken up again, but it would not amount even to 20 per cent, 
because a considerable number of such cases were disposed of under the act 
of April 26, 1906, as explained above. 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



208 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

In connection with this last no'e it should be borne in mind that while 
there were approximately 2,000 persons identified as Mississippi Choctaws, the 
total number of such persons was embraced in 916 cards. Moreover, not all 
identified Mississippi Choctaws removed to an established residence in the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw country so as to be entitled to final enrollment. The word 
" enrolled " should not be confused with the word ** identified." 

Consequently it would be necessary to give further consideration only to 20 
per cent (or less) of cases of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws. There were about 
1,600 persons finally enrolled, and there must have been from 300 to 500 cases 
of such character; therefore there would be not more than 20 per cent, or 
from 60 to 100 eases of mixed-blood children, a portion of which have already 
been disposed of. 

Act of June JO, 1896. — Examined application of Joanna Willianas. No. 506. 
I find on the jacket, in pencil, " See decision on paper within." Tnls is not 
signed. Following it is a line separating it from a further notice, which reads 
as follows : ** Filed Sept. 7, 1896. A. S. McKennon, commissioner." Then 
follows another line and another notation, "No answer," in pencil. At the 
bottom of the jacket appears the name of J. S. Amote, attorney. South McAlea- 
ter, Ind. T. On the back of the application itself is found the title of the case, 
and following it these words: "Admit Joanna Williams and Eiddie Waldron 
as citizens by blood." This notation is not signed, and, I am Informed, the sole 
and only decision rendered in the case. The writing is that of Commissioner 
McKennon. It was the custom of the commission after rendering decision to 
forward notice to the parties in interest on a printed form, in which was 
a blank wherein would be inserted the word " granted " or " denied " or 
" refused," or some equivalent expression. This notice would be signed by 
Mr. Jacoway. who was then secretary to the commission. In these cases no 
oral testimony was taken. The applicants would present a petition in writing; 
the nation would be allowe<l to file answer, and pleadings would be supported 
by such affidavits as parties saw fit to file. Upon the record so made up the 
decisions of the commission were rendered. 

An index was made of the applications submitted under the act of June 10, 
1896. These indexes were prepared partly prior to 1900, and some in 1902. 

About the time of the decision of the^department in the Joe and Dillard Perry 
case, as well as that of Allen Beagles, that applications made in 1S96 were 
treated as applications under the act of June 28, 1898, and the subsequent 
agreements and acts. 

In this particular case there was incloscnl a certificate in writing signed by 
J. L. Garvin and E. W. Folsom, chief justice and associate justice of the 
Choctaw Nation, respectively, showing that the applicant made application to 
said court in 1874 and that their right to citizenship was then accorded by the 
court. 

(Note. — Ascertain whether these people were finally enrolled as citizens upon 
the approved roll. Eddie Waldron is enrolled as a citizen by blood of the 
Choctaw Nation, his name appearing at No. 14430 upon the approved roll 
of such citizens, with his brother, Alonzo D. Williams, five of years. These are 
the children of Joanna Williams, who was admitted in the case above referred 
to, but who die<l prior to the time of making application for the enrollment of 
these children, September 4, 1899. Alonzo D. Williams, a son bom after 1896, 
was enrolled upon proper evidence of birth.) 

There was nothing done under this act looking to the enrollment of freed- 
men. There was no time. The notation in pencil directing enrollment was not 
dated : following such notation the clerk would enter the case upon the docket ; 
some date was given as the date of the decision, but I am not able to ascertain 
whether the date of the pencil notation or the date of the entry on the docket, 
or some other date, was accepted as the date of the decision. 

Total number of Choctaica an4 Chickaaatca by blood and intennarriaffe, includ- 
ing nUnorSy but excluding Mississippi Choctaws. 

Choctaws by blood enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902. 16, 227 

Choctaws by blood enrolled under act of Mar. 3, 1905 1, 58S 

Choctaws by blood enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 956 

Total Choctaws by blood of all classes 18, 766 

Choctaws by intermarriage 1, 672 

Total Choctaws ^,438 

Digitized by VjQQQ lC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 209 

diickasaws by blood enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 

1902 J 5,05© 

Chickasaws by blood enrolled under act of Mar. 3, 1905 578 

Chlckasaws by blood enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 331 

Total enrolled Cblckasaws by blood of all classes 5,968 

Chickasaws by Intermarriage 648 

Total Cblckasaws 6, 616 

Choctaw freedmen enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1992. 5, 546 

Choctaw freedmen enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 473 

Total enrolled Choctaw freedmen 6,019 

Total enrolled Chickasaw freedmen 4,853 

Identified Mississippi Choctaws i 2,534 

Enrolled Mississippi Choctaws 1,440 

Mississippi Choctaws enrolled under act of Mar. 3, 1905 H 

Mississippi. Choctaws enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 187 

Approximate number of cases of Choctaws by blood and intermarriage, 

excluding newborns and minors 7, 070 

Approximate number of cases of Chickasaws by blood and intermarriage, 

excluding newborns and minors 2, 300 

Approximate number of cases of Choctaw freedmen, excluding minors.. 1, 664 

Approximate number granted Choctaw freedmen cases 1,600 

Approximate number refused Choctaw freedmen cases 164 

Total 1, 664 

Total approximate number of Chickasaw freedmen cases 1, 586 

Approximate number granted Chickasaw freedmen cases 1,446 

Approximate number refused Chickasaw freedmen cases 150 

Totel . 1, 686 

Total approximate number of Mississippi Choctaw cases 7,476 

Approximate number granted Mississippi Choctaw cases 816 

Approximate number refused Mississippi Choctaw cases 6, 560 

Total - 7,476 



Exhibit E 

[Memorandum.] 

Rolls relating to citizens of the Cherokee Nation prepared hy the trihal 
authorities and others, dated November 28, 1908, 

RoU of iP(?0.— This was a census roll prepared by the Government of the 
United States In the making of the Twelfth Census. It Included in part citlBens 
ef the Cherokee Nation. It was not Indexed. 

Cherokee roll, i«9tf.— Census roll made by the Cherokee authorities. The ron 
is not in* as good condition as the 1880 Cherokee roU. Its appearance from page 
to page is naore like that of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations— that is to 
say, there are occasional defects. Names are lined out without explanatlcm. 
This roll, like the roll of 1880, Included children. This roll was Indexed by the 
Dawes Commission and used In the course of the enrollment work. 

1896 Shatcnee pay roW.— This was the roll as revised by a business committee 
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The names are arranged on it In 
a^habetlcal order. 

F«y row of Delawares under act of the national council approved March 80, 
ISge.—ThiB was a roU of Delaware Indians made by D. W. Llpe. It was do4 
indexed. 

1894 pay roK.— This was a pay roll of Cherokees by blood which was indexed 
1^ the Dawes Commission and used In tbe oirollment work. Two tandred anA 

60282 ^13 ^14 Digitized by V^OOQIC 



210 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

sixty-five dollars and seventy cents per capita was paid out under this roll 
to the citizens by blood. This payment was known as the " strip payment" 

I find that this roll is arranged in alphabetical order by districts. I find 
that some names have been erased or scraped off with a knife and that in some 
other cases other names have been lined out. 

The 1880. 1894. and 1896 rolls were used from the beginning of the work. 
Contrast this with the 1893 and the other rolls and the rolls last referred to — 
that is to say. those prior to 1894 — ^were used on and after the adjudication of 
cases commenced. 

189S roll, — This was a census roll. It was Indexed as to freedmen only. 

1890 census roll. — This was not indexed. 

1H90 pay roZ^— Consists of four volumes. Was not indexed. Thirteen dollars 
and seventy cents per capita was paid out under this roll to the citizens by 
blood. 

1886 pay roll, — ^Thls consists of 15 volumes made up of the stubs of certificates 
showing payments made under the 1886 roll. It was not indexed. Fifteen dol- 
lars and ninety-five cents per capita was paid out under this roll to the citizens 
by blood. 

1884 Hester roll, — ^Thls roll was prepared by ^os^h G. Hester.. This roll 
was not prepared by the tribal authorities, and it is understood that it related 
merely to the band of Eastern Oherokees who never removed west of the Mis- 
sissippi. The Dawes Commission never had this roll. 

1885 roll, — ^This was a census and pay roll, but was not indexed. Fifteen 
dollars and fifty cents per capita was paid out under this roll to the citizens by 
blood. 

1880 roll, — ^This was a pay roll. It was not indexed. 

1880 census roll, — ^Thls roll was confirmed by section 21 of the act of June 21, 
1898. 

Roll made under act of December 5, 1819. — This roll was made up of receipts 
for payments made by D. W. Lipe for breadstuffs. It was not indexed. Six- 
teen dollars and fifty-five cents per capita was paid out under this roll to the 
citizens by blood. 

Roll of 1815 or 1816. — The fact of the existence of this roll is uncertain. 
It was claimed by various parties that such a roll was made in accordance 
with the act of November or December 19, 1874, of the Cherokee Nation. 
Efforts were made to find the roll, but it was never possible to locate it. It 
was, of course, never Indexed. For information concerning this roll see the 
Cherokee enrollment case of William C. Smith. 

It may be added that there was certainly a payment made under thiit act, 
although the record of payments may not have taken the form of a rolL H 
has been suggested that possibly the record was made in the form of receipts 
In a stub book. At any rate nothing was ever obtained showing who the per- 
sons were who received the payments. It is stated that this payment was 
made as a relief payment and that possibly no record was kept. 

1861 roll,— This roll has a printed title running across the top of the pages. 
Such title reads as follows : '' Census or enumeration of the inhabitants of 
Saline district, members of the Cherokee Tribe of Indians, and other persons 
residing in the Indian Territory." 

This roll is arranged by districts. The names are not arranged in alphabeti- 
cal order. Many of the persons enrolled thereou had Indian names. The 
pages were ruled with columns entitled, "Age," "Sex," "Indian," "White," 
" Half-breeds," " Colored." The total number of persons in Tahlequah aM 
Saline districts was 1,514. No index was made of this roll, but the roll was 
investigated with reference to specific cases. It was received by the commis- 
sion some time during the last part of 1902 or in the spring of 1903. 

The recapitulation at the close of the book for said districts is as follows: 

Indians 991 

Whites 10 

Half-breeds 342 

Colored 171 

I am informed that this roll was taken and accepted by the commission as 
being a roll of freedmen only, and that it was not used as a basis for enroll- 
ment of Indians by blood. There were, however, some cases where this roll 
was investigated from the standpoint of applicants by blood. 

Chapman roll, 1852. — The roll in the possession of the commission is a copy 
of a roll on which a per capita payment was made to the Cherokee Indians 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 211 

reeiding east of the Mississippi River by Albert Chapman, special agent, In 
compliance with the acts of September 30, 1850, and February 27, 1851. 

Note. — I think this roll is referred to in an act of the National Council of 
the Cherokee Nation published in one of their law books Issued somewhere about 
the year 1880. In that act provision was made for a commission on citizenship 
and the requirements were laid down which applicants were obliged to comply 
with to show their Indian blood. One of the requirements was that any person 
could be enrolled by the commission who could show descent from a person 
whose name appears upon the Chapman roll. This roll was not indexed by 
the Dawes commission and was not used in the preparation of the final citizen- 
ship roll. 

Siler roU, 1851. — This was a census roll of the Cherokee Indians residing 
east of the Mississippi River. It was taken by Special Agent D. W. Slier 
during the year 1851. 

Note. — The same remarks apply here as those made above with reference to 
the Chapman roll; that is to say, the tribal authorities enrolled the descend- 
ants of persons whose names appeared upon the Slier roll. This roll was not 
Indexed by the Dawes Commission and was not used In the making up of the 
final roll. 

Mullay roll, 1848, — This roll was made by Special Agent J. C. Mullay, under 
the act of Congress of July 29, 1848 (9 Stat., 264). It was a roll of "Eastern 
Cherokee Indians." 

The Mullay roll Is also referred to in the act of the Cherokee Council In con- 
nection with the Slier and Chapman rolls mentioned above. 

Census roll of 18S5. — This roll was a census roll of Cherokees residing In 
the limits of Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia in the year 1835. 
It probably was made before the removal of any portion of the tribe to Indian 
Territory. It was not an Indexed roll. 

Dockets. — In addition to the rolls there was a list of names upon the dockets 
of various courts and commissions both tribal and the United States. 



Exhibit F. 

This exhibit Is Inclosed herewith but under separate binding. It is made up 
of typewritten transcript of stenographic notes taken during the course of 
field work and of various letters and memoranda relating to specific cases. It 
consists of four parts, separately bound, designated as parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. 



Exhibit G. 

This exhibit Is Inclosed herewith but under separate binding. It consists of 
photographs mounted on sheets of paper. These photographs are pictures of 
persons claiming enrollment .as citizens and freedmen of the Five Civilized 
Tribes. 



Exhibit HI. 

OmcE OF the Attobney Genebal, 

Washington, D. (7., March 4, 190t. 

Deab Mb. Pbesident: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. 
Loeb*s letter of this date, inclosing one from Senator Curtis, likewise of March 
4. In the former communication I am requested to express my opinion as to 
the suggestion of Senator Curtis respecting the opinion furnished by me to the 
Secretary of the Interior of February 19, 1907, concerning the enrollment of 
certain claimants to Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship. 

It Is appropriate that I should explain, In the first place, how far and under 
what circumstances the matter had been previously called to my attention. On 
Saturday last Messrs. McMurray & Cornish, two of the attorneys for the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, called upon me and asked whether something 
conld not be done to preserve from the adverse effect of my opinion the claim 
of certain Indians which were regarded by them and, according to their state- 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



212 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

ment, by the two tribes as well, as highly meritorious. It was conceded by 
these gentlemen, in substance, first, that my opinion correctly stated the law, 
and, secondly, that the cases in which they were interested came within the 
pnrvtew of the said opinion. I told them, in substance, that, upon these two 
concessions, I could see nothing that might be done for the benefit of their 
clients except to apply to Congress for remedial legislation. To this they said 
that there were decisive objections. I then told them that personally I had 
some doubt as to whether the cases In which they were interested did come 
within the purview of my opinion, but I had not time then to examine the au- 
thorities; that I would, therefore, refer them to Mr. W. R. Harr, who had 
rendered me very valuable assistance in the preparation of this opinion, and If 
he thought the cases were not covered by the opinion, or that there was any 
reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the latter, and if either you or the 
Secretary of the Interior would ask me for a further opinion I would, in view 
of the urgency of the case, give the matter undivided attention, notwithstanding 
the pressure of other engagements, and furnish the supplemental opinion 
desired. 

These gentlemen saw Mr. Harr, who thought, and, as I understand, led them 
to think, that their cases did not come within the terms of my opinion; bnt, 
80 far as I am informed, they did not procure either from you or from the 
Secretary of the Interior any request for a further opinion on the subject 1 
received, however, such a request from Senator Curtis, written, I presume, at 
their request, to which I was obliged to reply that the invariable and, in my 
judgment, very salutary rule of the department prevented my giving an opin- 
ion, unless under the circumstances prescribed by the statute. 

Since receiving your note I have considered the matter as carefully as the 
limited time at my disposal permitted, with the following result : 

The cases on which I gave an opinion to the Secretary of the Interior were 
those of persons claiming to be Choctaw or Chickasaw citizens, who had been 
denied enrollment by the Dawes Commission, under the provisions of the act 
of 1896; who had appealed to the United States courts, as permitted by the 
same act, and there obtained a reversal of the action of the commission and their 
own admission to the rolls; whose enrollment had been subsequently annulled 
by proceedings taken In pursuance of the treaty of 1902, esrablishlng the citi- 
Eenship court, and who had been denied enrollment by that court upon a trial 
of the case de novo as permitted by the treaty in question. These claimants, 
who were, in fact, white people — the children of a white man by his second 
white wife, he having been previously married to an Indian woman — ^were 
admitted to enrollment by virtue of an opinion of the Assistant Attorney (Jen- 
eral for the Interior Deimrtment; and I was constrained to hold this enroll- 
ment erroneous, and to determine that they were not entitled to the privileges 
of Choctaw or Chickasaw citizenship. 

The persons in whose behalf Messrs. McMurray & Cornish and Senator Curtis 
have Intervened were enrolled as citizens by the Dawes Commission under the 
act of 1896; an appeal from this action of the commission was taken by the 
two nations to the United States courts and the decision of the Dawes Com- 
mission was there affirmed. This decree of the 'United States court was an- 
nulled as a result of the test case Instituted In the citizenship court. In accord- 
ance with the treaty of 1902 ; but the case itself was not then trani^ferred to the 
citizenship court, the claimants being apparently advised that they could rely 
upon the original decision of the Dawes Commission as entitling them to citi- 
zenship. It Is obvious that the two sets of cases are not at all parallel, and 
I fully agree with Mr. Harr and with Senator Curtis that the terms of my 
recent opinion do not cover these cases. 

I find, however, that the precise question Involved has been passed upon by 
this department in an opinion furnished to the Secretary of the Interior at 
May 9, 1904, by Acting Attorney General J. C. McReynolds, who, in a case 
exactly similar, determined that the decision by the citizenship court in the 
test case operated to annul, not merely the decrees of the United States court, 
but also the action of the Dawes Commission, when favorable to the claimants, 
from which appeals to these courts had been taken. Mr. McReynolds*8 reasons 
seem to me very forcible, and, in view of the facts that this decision was ren- 
dered nearly three years ago, and that, so far as I am informed, no steps wet^ 
taken by these claimants or other persons affected by it to have it revieteed 
either by this department or by the courts until a few hours before the tliae 
when their possible rights to enrollment would expire, I think they must be 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 218 

considered as barred from relief by reason of their own laxness, at least so 
far as the executive departments are concerned. 

If you think it desirable, I will embody the foregoing conclusions in a formal 
opinion. 

I remain, as ever, yours, very respectfully, 

Charles J. Bonapabte. 
The Pbesident, 

The White House. 



Exhibit H2. 

The White House, 
Washitiffton, March 6, 1907. 
My Deab Mb. Secbetabt: I inclose a communication from Attorney General 
Bonaparte in regard to certain Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship cases. By 
direction of the President this is to be treated as a formal opinion. 
Very truly, yours, 

Wm. IjOEB, Jr., 
Secretary to the President, 
Hon. James B. Gabfuxo, 

Secretary of the Interior, 



Exhibit I. 

Copy of notice removed from waU of land office at Atoka, Okla., in 

November, 1908. 

(torn) the Intebiob, 
(torn) the fitb civilized tbibbs. 

Notice. 

ENBOLLMENT of MINOB CHILDBEN of citizens of the CHOCTAW AND CHICKABAW 

NATIONS. 

By the act of Congress appr(tom) April 26, 1906 (H. R. 5976), entitled 
"An act to provide (torn) the final disposition of the affairs of the Five 
Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, and for other purposes," it was pro- 
vided as follows: 

"That for ninety days (torn) approval hereof applications shall be received 
for enrollme(tom) who were minors living March fourth, nineteen hundred 
(torn) parents have been enrolled as members of the Choctaw and (torn) . . 
tribes, or hate applications for enrollment pending at the (torn) ereof, and for 
tiie purpose of enrollment under this secticm illegitim(tom) en shall take the 
flrtatuB of the mother, and allotments shall be made (torn) dren so enrolled." 

Notice is hereby given that the Comm (torn) ner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes will, up to and inclusive of midnight of Wednesday, July 25, 1906, re- 
ceive applications for the enrollment of minor children who were living March 
4» 1906, and whose parents have been enrolled us members of the Choctaw and 
Obickasaw Tribes of Indians, or have applications for enrollment as citizens 
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations now pending. 

finch applications may be made personally at any time up to and inclusive 
«f July 25, 1906, at the general oflice of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes at Muskogee, Indian Territory; also at the Choctaw land office at 
▲toka, Indian Territory, and at the Chickasaw land ofllce at Ardmore, Indian 
Territory, from July 1 to July 25, 1906. 

Applications by mail should be addressed to the Ck)mmissloner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, Muskogee, Indian Territory, and mailed in sufficient time to 
Mech die ofllce of the commissioner at Muskogee, Indian Territory, not later 
than July 25, 190 (torn). 

The commissioner will maintain appointnients at vario (torn) owns in the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for the reception of applications for the 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



214 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

(torn) Iment of minor children as citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Nations, as follows (torn) : 

Choctaw Nation: 

Hugo, May 7th to 11th, inclnslve (torn). 

Bennington, May 14th to 18th (torn). 

Idabel, May 21st to 25 inchisl (torn). 

AUkchi, May 28th to June Is (torn). 

Smith vUle, June 4th to 8th (torn). 

Tuskahoma, June 12th to 1 (torn). 

Poteau, June 18th to 22nd inclu (torn). 

Caddo, June 18th to 22nd Indus (torn). 

(torn) outh McAlester, June 25th (torn) inclusive. 

(torn) Ita, June 25th to 29th Inclusive. 
Chickasaw Nation: 

(torn) imcan, May 7th to 11th, Inclusive. 

Chlckasha, May 14th to 18th, Inclusive. 

Pauls Valley, May 21st to 25th, inclusive. 

Ada, May 28th to June 1st, inclusive. 

Tishomingo, June 4th to 8th, inclusive. 

Colbert, June 11th to 15th, inclusive. 

All such applications must be made to the Commissioner to the Five Civilised 
Tribes and submitted upon the blanks provided for that purpose by this office. 

(torn) he rules of the commissioner require that applications for the enroll- 
ment of minor child (torn) accompanied by the affidavit of the moth» and 
the attending physician or the midwife at (torn) of the child. In event that 
either of the affiants are unable to write, signature by (torn) mast be attested 
by two witnesses. Each affidavit must be executed before a notary public and 
the notarial seal of the officer must be attached to each separate affidavit. 

The reception of application is liimted to minor children of members of the 
Choctaw (torn) nd Chickasaw Tribes of Indians and to the minor children of 
persons who have applications pending for enrollment as citizens of the said 
nations on April 26, 1906, and does not include the children of Choctaw and 
Chickasaw freedmen. 

Tams Bixby, 
Commissioner to^ the Five Civilized Tribes, 

(torn) Indian TEBBrroBT, April 26, 1906. 



Exhibit J. 

Depabtment of the Intebiob, 
Commission to the Five Civilized Tbibes, 

Muskogee, Ind. IT., January 24, 190S, 
The Secbetaby of the Intebiob. 

Sib: Receipt is hereby acknowledged of departmental communication of 
December 27, 1902 (I. T. D. 470a-1902 and 649^1902), requesting attention to 
departmental letter of October 23, 1902, relative to the application of Bettie 
Lewis for enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. 

The matter was first brought to the attention of the department in the deci- 
sion of the commission, under date of July 23, 1902, refusing the application 
made by Bettie Lewis for enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw 
Nation. In her testimony before the commission at Atoka, Ind. T., June 7, 
1900, Bettie Lewis stated that her father, Butler McGJee, who had then been 
dead about 15 years, was, during his lifetime a recognized citizen by blood of 
the Choctaw Nation and a resident of Jacks Fork County. 

On August 12, 1902, the department, upon the recommendation of the Acting 
Commissioner of Indian Affairs of August 2, 1902, requested the commission to 
report whether the name of Butler McOee, the alleged father of Bettie Lewis* 
is found on any of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation. 

In reply thereto the commission, on August 28, 1902, advised the department 
"that the enrollment of the citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, 
as now being made by this commission, is upon the Identification of the appli- 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 215 

cant from the 1893 leased district payment roll of the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
Nations and the 1896 census roll of the citizens of these two trlhes," and further, 
" no authenticated rolls of the citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes 
have ever been furnished the commission as a basis of enrollment, nor have 
any roll or rolls of the citizens of these two tribes ever been adopted or con- 
firmed by the National Council of the Choctaw Nation or the Legislature of 
the Chickasaw Nation as authenticated rolls of citizenship," and further, " The 
commission has not in its x)osses8ion, nor had It any knowledge of any rolls 
of the citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations made during or prior to 
the year 1885," and further, "The request has heretofore on several occasions 
been made to the tribal authorities of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations to 
furnish the commission with any and all rolls and records of citizenship In 
the possession of the two tribes, but we have never been furnished with any 
roll or rolls of the citizens made prior to the leased district payment roll of 
1893." 

In reporting on the communication of the commission of August 28, 1902, the 
Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, under date of October 21, 1902 (Land, 
51962-1902), after referring to acts of the national council of the Choctaw 
Nation and of the Chickasaw legislature, authorizing the preparation of rolls 
of citizenship, expresses the opinion that such tribal legislation clearly shows 
that " there were censuses prepared and regular rolls of citizenship kept, and 
that the enrollment of citizens was one of the Important functions of govern- 
ment In the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for many years; that this being 
true, there must be numerous^, rolls of the citizens of the two tribes antedating 
the 1893 leased district payment roll of these two tribes." 

The Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs further expresses the opinion that 
the commission should be Instructed to again call upon the executives of the 
(^octaw and Chickasaw Nations for such rolls made prior to 1893, and in case 
of failure upon their part to appeal to the United States court. In accordance 
with the provision of the act of Congress of June 28, 1898. 

In concluding, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs states as follows: 

"This office has examined and reported on a large number of cases of appli- 
cants for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, 
and recommended that the applicants be rejected for enrollment on the pre- 
sumption that statements by the commission in those cases, of the general 
character of the statements in the two cases referred to herein, involved an 
exhaustive examination of the rolls of those nations, and is now surprised and 
disappointed to learn that it was misled into believing that the examination 
had been thorough and complete. In other words, these recommendations and 
the action of the department thereon were based on false premises, and many 
of the conclusions reached may have been consequently erroneous. 

" This office, in the light of the circumstances presented, recommends that the 
Bettle Lewis case and all other rejected applications for citizenship in the 
Ohoftaw and Chickasaw Nations be held for further consideration until the 
commission Is In a position to make a more thorough examination with refer- 
ence to what the Choctaw and Chickasaw rolls actually do show." 

This report of the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs was transmitted 
by the department for consideration, report, and reconmiendatlon on October 23, 
1902 (L T. D. 6496-1902). 

The commission has to report that from the Inception of the work of the 
enrollment of the citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations every possible 
effort has been made to obtain from the tribal authorities of these two nations 
any rolls of citizenship that they might have in their possession. The first step 
taken in this direction was after the approval of the act of Congress on 
June 10, 1896, when request was made of the principal chief of the Choctaw 
NaUon and the governor of the Chickasaw Nation to furnish the commission 
the last authenticated roll of citizens of these two tribes made prior to June 10, 
1886, and all other rolls made subsequent thereto, with such copies of the acts 
of legislature and the national council of the two nations, the judgments of 
citizenship courts or commission as may have been rendered since the date of 
the last authenticated rolls admitting persons to citizenship In the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Nations, and such other records and documents as might be in 
any manner helpful to the commission in making rolls of the citizens of the two 
nations In accordance with the acts of Congress on June 10,* 1896, and June 7, 
1897. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



216 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

This request was made of the chief executives of the two tribes in communica- 
tions under date of June 28; 1897. In reply thereto the principal chief of the 
Choctaw Nation, under date of July 10, 1897, advised the commission : 

** It Is absolutely impracticable for me to furnish your commission a complete 
roll of the Choctaws, together with all persons admitted after June 10, 1896. 
I think, however, that I can furnish your commission names of some parties 
tkat were fraudulently admitted, provided that you will extend my time for 
this work, say, about 20 days from the 2d of August." 

The principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, on July 17, 1897, in reference to 
the rolls, advised this commission as follows : 

'* It will be Impossible for me to furnish your commission with the last authen- 
ticated roll made prior to June 10, 1890, as the time to prepare the roll is too 
brief. But the last revised roll made in accordance with an act of council 
(October, 1896) contains all the cltieens of the Choctaws by blood, intermarriage, 
and adoption, and is about complete after about four months of labor, and will 
be furnished you at the time requested. I will add, however, that the law 
authorizing this last roll provided that the principal chief shall approve of and 
sign the roll before it becomes the recognized rolls of the citizens of the 
Choctaw Nation. But as I am satisfied that there are some names on the roll 
titiat have been registered through firaud or misrepresentation, I shall not ap- 
prove of it until these cases are investigated. At the proper time I will furni^ 
you a list of these names and of the witnesses." 

On July 30, 1897, the principal chief advised the commission of the forward- 
ing by express of the revised roll of the Choctiiw Nation, contiilnlng the names 
of the citizens by blood, marriage, or adoption, and in this connection states 
as follows : 

" The law requiring the taking of the roll required it to be approved by the 
principal chief, but as there are names on the roll that I am satisfied ought not 
to be there, I will not approve of the rolls until these cases are investigated. 
I will furnish you, In a few days, all the evidence I can bearing on these cases." 

Under date of August 13, 1897, the commission addressed a commimication to 
the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, requesting that he ** Inform us the 
date of your last authenticated roll, approved by your national coimcll, prior 
to June 10, 1896, which includes the names of intermarried citizens as well as 
citizens by blood. It will be necessary for us to have that roll, and every other 
roll made since that time, to enable us to comply with the law under which we 
are to make rolls." 

In reply to this communication, on August 17, 1897, the principal chief of the 
Choctaw Nation advised the commission as follows : 

" I wish to Inform you that there was no roll of Intermarried citizens made 
prior to June, 1896. 

"The revised roll which I recently furnished your commission is the only 
loll made by this nation that contains the names of intermarried citizens." 

The governor of the Chickasaw Nation, on July 22, 1897, In reply to^onr 
request of June 28, 1897, advised the commission as follows: ** We have only 
one authenticated roll of citizens, and that is the one approved by the legislature 
In 1896," and on December 27, 1897, the governor of the Chickasaw Nation ad- 
vised the commission that he had that day forwarded a *' true copy of the roll 
of our people — the best we can do under present circumstances. Any informa- 
tion you may wish in regard to same will be gladly given, if within my power to 
do so." 

The correspondence had with the chief executives of the two tribes above 
referred to shows clearly that there had never, prior to the approval of the act 
of Congress of June 10, 1896, been any rolls of the citizens of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Nations which had been ratified and confirmed by the legislative 
bodies of these two nations or bad received the approval of the chief executi^res. 
It is a matter of general information in snld nations that the rolls made prior 
to that time were merely census rolls made up separately according to coimtles 
and districts by individual census takers in such counties and districts, and 
which were never brought together or consolidated so as to form a complete 
roll of tribal members. ^^ .,«w. 

The rolls made under the provisions of the act of Congress of June 10, 1806, 
by the tribal authorities have never received the confirmation of the legislative 
bodies of the two nations nor the approval of the chief executives, so that at 
the Inception of the work of the enrollment of the citizens of the?e two nations 
the commission was only furnished with the two rolls above referred to and 
made under the provisions of the act of Congress of June 10, 1896. and which. 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 217 

the commission was informed, contained inaccuracies. In 1898, after the ap- 
proval of the act of Congi-ess of June 28. 1898, authorizing the commission to 
make correct rolls of the citizens of these two tribes, an earnest effort was made 
to secure from the tribal authorities of these two nations all rolls of cltlzen- 
rtiip and other papers, documents, and acts of admission of any description 
tiiat might in any manner assist the commission in the preparation of correct 
rolls of the citizens of the two tribes, and to determine whether any such rolls, 
documents, or acts were in existence, and if so, where located. 

In the fall of 1898, when the commission began the work of enrollment in the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, Commissioners Blxby and McKennon, who 
were both in the field, conducted an investigation looking to the location and 
acquirement of tribal rolls and records. As a result of their personal efforts 
the commission secured the Choctaw leased district payment roll of 1893 and 
the Chickasaw pay roll of 1893. In addition to these two payment rolls they 
also obtained what are known as the leshatubby and May tubby rolls of 1808, 
these rolls being memoranda made by Commissioners leshatubby and May- 
tubby in 1893 of those ChickasAw Indians who were residing in the Choctaw 
Nation. All of the rolls so obtained by Commissioners Blxby and McKennon 
were procured from individuals who had said rolls in their possession, and the 
information which the commissioners obtained at that time lead to the con- 
ciasion that it had been the practice of tribal officials charged with any duty 
in connection with tribal rolls to withdraw them from the executive offices when 
necessary and to retain them among their personal effects. 

The rolls above referred to were the only rolls of which the commission could 
gain any knowledge. Having been repeatedly informed by representatives of 
DOth tribes that no tribal rolls of any description were in the executive offices, 
and being thoroughly satisfied that the tribal officials were sincerely endeavor- 
ing to aid the commission hi locating the missing rolls, there appeared to be no 
foundation upon which to obtain an order of the court 

After the receipt of departmental communication of October 23, 1902, the 
commission at once addressed communications to the governor of the Chicka- 
saw Nation and the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, with which, for 
their Information, were inclosed copies of the report of the Acting Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs of October 21, 1902. In these communications the commis- 
sion earnestly requested the chief executives of the two tribes that there be 
transmitted at the earliest practicable date all the rolls of the citizens of 
the two tribes In the possession of the tribal authorities made prior to the 
leased district payment roll of 1893 and such other data as would be of benefit 
to the commission In determining the rights of persons to be enrolled as citizens 
of these two nations. 

No reply has ever been received by the commission to the letter addressed 
to the governor of the Chickasaw Nation, but under date of November 8, 1902, 
the princii>al chief of the Choctaw Nation, in reply to our requ^t, stated as 
follows : 

" In reply I have to say that I have this day written Hon. E. H. Wilson, 
national secretary of the Choctaw Nation, directing him to be at Tuskahoma on 
Monday, the 17th instant, for the purpose of making a thorough search among 
the records of the national secretiiry's office to ascertain If such census or 
records of citizens of the Choctaw Nation, as suggested in the letter of the 
lionorable Secretary of the Interior, can be found. 

" It w^lll require much time to go through the accumulated mass of ill- 
arranged papers in that office, and would suggest that you send a representa- 
tive there to cooperate with the national secretary In the search. 

" I am certainly interested In securing all the data bearing on the citizenship 
cases that can be obtained and will lend every assistance In that direction." 

In accordance with the suggestion of the principal chief of the Choctaw 
Nation, the commission directed one of its representatives to proceed to Tuska- 
homa on the 17th of November, for the purpose. In conjunction with the 
national secretary of the Choctaw Nation, of making a thorough search of the 
records of the national secretary's office for data bearing upon the rolls of 
citizenship of the Choctaw Nation. 

Another representative of the commission was also directed to proceed to 
Tishomingo, the national capital of the Chickasaw Nation, for the purpose of 
secnrlng such records as he might find in the national secretary's office of 
that nation bearing upon the rights of persons to citizenship in the Chickasaw 
Nation. 

The result of this investigation In the Chickasaw Nation has been the 
•ecuring of portions of the 1878 annuity roll of said nation, together with several 

Digitized by VjOOv IC 



218 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

lists, undated, which apparently contain the names of both citizens and non- 
citizens. So much of the 1878 annuity roll as was obtained is now being 
arranged and indexed. 

The representative of the commission delegated to Tuskahoma secured a 
large number of incomplete lists of persons, undated and without any caption, 
and it is impossible, from the condition in which the records were found, to defi- 
nitely state whether such lists were the rolls of the citizens of the Choctaw 
Nation. 

Both of the representatives of the commission delegated for this purpose 
spent several days in the office of the national secretaries of the two tribes 
and used every available means of securing any documents that might In any 
way materially assist the commission In the determination of the rights of 
persons to be enrolled as citizens of the two tribes. . 

After these Investigations and the return of our representatives to the general 
office, the commission was In receipt of a letter under date of December 15, 
1902, from Edward H. Wilson, the national secretary of the Choctaw Nation, 
as follows : 

"Very much to my surprise, as well as pleasure, I found a complete set of 
the Choctaw census rolls compiled In 1885. These rolls were found in a most 
Inaccessible place and were discovered by accident. I forwarded same by 
to-day's express and hope you will acknowledge receipt In due time." 

The rolls referred to In the above communication were received by the 
commission and are found to be In excellent condition, being separate bound 
rolls of each county In the Choctaw Nation, certified by the duly and lawfully 
appointed census enumerator to be a true census of the county and bearing the 
certificate of the national secretary of the Choctaw Nation, showing the date 
the same were filed for record in his office. 

These rolls, containing the names of probably between 12,000 and 14,000 
citizens of the Choctaw Nation, are now being Indexed by the commission and 
this work will r>i'esumably be completed within a very short time. 

The commission believes, as a result of this thorough Investigation in this 
matter, that the only rolls secured which can In any manner be referred to or 
relied upon as even incomplete rolls of the citizens of these two nations are the 
1885 census roll of the Choctaw Nation and the 1878 annuity roll of the citizens 
of the Chlckasjiw Nation. 

It is Impracticable at this time to determine and advise whether or not the 
name of Butler McGee, the alleged father of applicant, Bettle Lewis, In the case 
under consideration. Is found upon the 1885 census roll of the Choctaw Nation, 
but as soon as the index now being prepared Is completed the commission will 
report on the inquiry made in departmental letter of August 12, 1902. 

In referring to those cases wherein the department has affirmed the decision 
of the commission refusing the application of persons therein for enrollment 
as citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations the commission believes that 
In none of these cases will It be found that the applicants or their parents 
ever obtained any tribal recognition as citizens of these two tribes and that 
the greater number of applications were made by persons In the belief that the 
possession of Indian blood was the only requisite to their recognition and enroll- 
ment as citizens of these two nations. In those cases already affirmed by the 
department, however, the commission will make an Investigation of such rolls 
and papers as have recently come into his possession and will make report to 
the department In all cases in which It Is found that the names of the applicants 
or their ancestors appear thereon. 

The commission has further to report that In the cases which are now, and 
in tho future will be, forwarded to the department the statement as to tribal 
recognition will Include In the Choctaw Nation an examination of the 1885 
census roll, the 1893 leased district payment roll, and the 1896 census roll, and 
in the Chickasaw Nation the partial 1878 annuity roll, the 1893 leased district 
payment roll, and the 1896 census roll, the only rolls which the commission 
has been able to secure after a thorough and most painstaking investigation 
of this matter. 

Respectfully, Tams Bixby, 

Acting Chairman. 
T. R. Needles, 

Commissioner. 
C. R. Bbeckinbbidge, 

Commissioner. 



(Through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.) 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBE8 IN OKLAHOMA, 



219 



Exhibit " F." 

List of persona who claim to he entitled to enrollment as citizens and freedmen 
of the Five Civilized Trihes, prepared vHth a view to remedial legislation, 

Ghoctaws 303 

Mississippi Cboctaws 63 

Ohickasaws 133 

Cherokees 141 

Greeks 07 

Semlnoles 4 

Approximate number of duplications 12 

Total (net) 720 

Note. — This list includes the 52 persons named in the report of the Ck)mmis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes of November 15, 1907 ; also about 12 dupll- 
catioiiB. 

Note, 

The majority of the names appearing on the attached sheets will be found in 
alphabetical order, one page being devoted to each person or family. 

The following names, however, not having been arranged in the list in alpha* 
betlcal order, will be found on the pages designated below. Some of them 
include families, although It may not be so Indicated in this index. 

Adams, Mollie, et ah, see Scarborough. Choate, Ed, see Smith, Mary Ann. 

Bailey, Rufinia, see Secor. Choate, Jewel Ella, see Smith, Mary 
Baker, Annie, see Vaughn, Robert L. Ann. 

Baptist, Frizene, see Fames Choate, Rol>ert, see Smith, Mary Ann. 

Baptist, Joseph, see Fames. Christie, , see Cordray. 

Baptist, (child of Frizene), see Coflfey, George, see Cordray. 

Fames. Cookinghead, Jesse, see Cordray. 

Bell, Carrie, et al., see Johns. Crutchfield, Everett, see Scarborough. 

Bellvell, Mollie, see Olson. Cummins, James, see Boyd. 

Bellvell, Zena, see Olson. Cummins, Nancy E., et al., see Boyd. 

Benge, Young, see Boone. Darken. Sarah Jane, et al., see Harton. 

Blvin, James R., see Howarda. Davis, William T., see Howarda. 

Bond. Ora, et al., see Bean. Dobbs, Jennie, et al.. see Sinclair. 

Bonds, Richard, see Farve, Charles. Douglas, Eamest, see Stephenson. 

Boone, Frank, see Bean. Dunham, Nannie, see Scarborough. 

Boone, Volney, see Bean. Ellick, Buck, see Downing, Laura. 

Borshe, Daisy, see Harris, Emma. Elms, Sarah, see Boyd. 

Brown, Carl, see Love. Ensharley, Annie, see Arpelar. 

Brown, Hattle, see Love. Epps, Mary, see Henry. 

Brown, Leo, see Love. Farve, Eamest, see Fames. 

Brown, Ix)rena, see Love. Farve, Seymour, see Fames. 

Brown, Joseph H., see Vaughn, Robert Flack (nee Wilson), Anna, see WiU 

L. son, Harriett. 

Broi^-n, Parmelia, see Wilson. Katie. Flint, LiOo W., et al., see Fox. 

Bullfrog, Chelousa, see Speaker. Foreman, Thomas, see Speaker. 

Bumgamer, George A., see Scarbor- Franklin, Fannie, see Love. 

ough. Gardner, Rena, see Fames: 

Burl^hardt, Lizzie, see Fames. Going, James, see I^wis, Ellia 

Butler, Charley, see Vaughn, Robert L. Gordon, Harriet, et al., see Vaughn^ 
Buzzard. Charles, see Boone. Roljert L. 

Canoe, Nancy, see Cordray. Greenup. Sarah, see Love. 

Carson, Millard D., see Vaughn, Rob- Hair, Samuel, see Howe, Leora. 

ert L. Harjo, , see Howarda. 

Catcher, Charley (or Teehee), see Henry, Mary, see Henry, Elizabeth J. 

Cordray. Hickman, Gaston, see McMillan, Henry. 

Chapman, R. L., et al., see Vaughn, Hodges, Mary, see Wilson, Agnes. 

Robert I-. Hogshooter, Jessie, see Howe, Leora. 

Charles, Cilley, see Battieste. Hogshooter, Willie, see Howe, I^eora. 

Charles, Sarley, see Battieste. Hoper, Louis, see Battieste. 

Choate, Annie Corine, see Smith, Mary Howell, T.<eora, see Howe, Leora. 

Ann. Istichi, Silla, see Lewis, Ellis, t 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



220 



LETTER OP SUBMITTAL FOB FULL BBPOBT. 



Jackson, , see Fames. 

Jackson, Mary, see Ivey, Fannie. 

Jacob, Johnson, see Battfeste. 

Johnico and wife, see Johniko. 

Johnson, Joseph, see Boyd. 

Jones, n^e Wilson, Martha, see Wilson, 
Harriett. 

Jordan, Leona Leila, see Johnson, 
Frank. 

Kingfisher, Joe, see Cloud. 

Lee, Robert, see Vaughn, Allen J. 

Lucar, John, et aL, see Palmer. 

Manuel, Caesar, see Vaughn, Allen J. 

Manuel, Zelmore, see Vaughn, Allen J. 

Mayautubbee, Mary, see Battieste. 

McCoy, Jack, see Martin. 

Mike, Annie, see Martin. 

Moore, Mary, see Henry. 

Morgan, Frank P., see Vaughn, 
Robert L. 

Mikey, Joe, see Meyers. 

Koah, , see Bond. 

Orphan, Buster, see Arpelar. 

Palmer, , see Consor. 

Palmer, , see Consor. 

Patterson, D. D., see Vaughn, Robert L. 

Pruit, Henry, et al., see Vaughn, Rob- 
ert L. 

Reed, Victoria, see Fames. 

Rentle, Fred, see Vaughn, Allen J. 

Rentie, Stella, see Vaughn, Allen J. 

Riddle, Wincy, see Scarborough. 

Ritter, David, see Crutchfleld. 

Bawanogee, John, see Thompson, 
Kizzie. 

Sawanogee, Nancy, see Thompson, 
Kizzie. 



Sawanogee, Simon, see Thompson, 

Kizzie. 
Scott, Ista, see Smith, Bessie. 
Shade. Striker, see Smith, Bessie. 
Shockley, Mattie, et al., see West 
Sledge, Daniel, et al., see Vaughn, 

Robert L. 
Sledge, Will, et al., see Vaughn, 

Robert L. 
Smith, Madine, see Phillips. 
Smythe, Mary O., see Phillips. 
Stevenson, Riley, see Stephenson. 
Southern, Mrs. William, see Coins. 
Stout, Kate, see Ladner. 
Stout, Sam, see Ladner. 
Suagee, Jennie and Nannie, see Smith, 

Bessie. 
Thompson, Giles, see Wall. 
Thompson (or Henry) Leona, see Me- 

Millan, Henry. 
Thompson, John T., et aL, see Harton. 
Tiger, Sunday, see Vau^m, Allen J. 
Tubby, Dolphns, see Vaughn, Allen J. 
Tucker, George, see Vaughn, Robert L. 
Tud£er, Tom, see Vau^m, Robert L. 

Turabull, , see Vaughn, Allen J. 

Wesley, Ada, et al., see Howarda. 
Westbrook, Thomas A., see Vaughn, 

Robert L. 
Williams, Henderson, et al., see 

Stephenson. 
Williams, John E., see Stephenson. 
Williams, Margaret, see Vaughn, 

Robert L. 
York, n^ Ward, Sarah, et al., see 

Ward. 



Abbott, Clara Rose. (Minor.) 
Abbott. Coleman Jj, (Minor.) 

Cherokees by adoption. Files: Records Commissioner to the Five Civil- 
ized Tribes; N. B. 537. These children are the offspring of Roxana 
Abbott, whose name appears upon the approved roll of citizens by blood 
of the Cherokee Nation. Her mother also appears upon the 1880 
Cherokee tribal roll, which was confirmed by the Curtis Act June 28, 
1898. By that act it was directed that pei^sons whose names appeared 
upon the IRSO roll and their descendants should be enrolled upon the 
final rolls of the Cherokee Nation. The mother Is a white woman, but 
she obtained her citizenship rights by adoi)tIon of her father, J, H, 
Bennett, who paid the sum of $500 into the trensury of the Cherokee 
Nation, November 22, 1877, "for the purpose of securing the rights, 
privileges, and franchise of a Cherokee Indian, as provided for in the 
constitution and laws of the Cherokee Nation, chapter 12, article 15, 
and section 75." His name also appears on the said roll of 1880. 

These children were denied enrollment by the department, March 1, 
1907, because the authority of the Dawes Commission under the act 
of April 26, 1906, as amended June 21, 1006, was construeS to apply 
only to children of citizens by blood. This was evidently an erroneous 
construction, the intention of the latter act being to bar the children 
of citizens who claimed only by intermarriage. This Is illustrated by 
another case, to wit, that of the children of Wade H. Seara, cousins 
of the children named above, who were enrolled by the dejmrtment 
March 4, 1907, as children of an adopted (not Intermarried) citisoi, 
following the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General for the Interior 
Department, February 28, 1907, in the case of William Jesse Bacon. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 221 

Aaams, Fbedihe. (Minor.) 

Creek freedman. Files: Part III, Report Maroh 3, 1009. This boy 
was bom August 17, 1905, and is the child of Hattie Rentie. or Adams, 
and Will Adams. He was entitled to enrollment under the act of April 
26, 1906, but the matter of making application for his enrolhn«it was 
left to a notary public, who failed to attend to it. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

AiKAifs, Lottie. (Minor.) 

Chickasaw by blood. Departmmit files, volume 16, Opinions Assistant 
Attorney Creneral, page 21 ; papers in Indian Office The question to be 
determined in this case was whether the Commission to the Five Civil- 
ised Tribes had jurisdiction to consider the application for enrollment 
of a minor whose name could not be identified upon the rolls prepared 
by the tribal authorities. 

The papers submitted in her case tend to show that she was a Chicka- 
saw Indian by descent; that she was 16 years of age at the time of 
her application; and that she never had been enrolled or admitted to 
enrollment by any tribal officer or by any tribunal under the authority 
of the tribal law or the laws of the United States. 

It was held by the Assistant Attorney General for the Interior De- 
partm^it, June 8, 1901 (see volume and page referred to above), that the 
Dawes Commission was by reason of said act of May 31, 1900, without 
Jurisdiction to receive or consider her application. 

This case illustrates that the act of May 31, 1900, did not confer upon 
the Dawes Commissicm a Jurisdiction broad enough to permit of the 
consideration of all cases upon their merlta 

Number of claimants in tbis memorandum, 1. 

ADAifs, Mitchell C. 
Adams, Lillie M. 
Adams, Noba M. 

adams, willla.m 0. 

Choctaws by blood ; also Mississippi Choctaws. O. O. land-population 
32,54^-1909 ; see also Report of Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
of November 15, 1907. The head of this family is a full-blood Choctaw ; 
the others who are his chUdren are half-blood Choctaws. An opinion 
was rendered by the Assistant Attorney General for the Interior Depart- 
ment February 20, 1907 (25 A. A. G., 227), setting forth the facts fuUy 
and holding the applicants entitled to enrollment as Choctaws by blood. 
This was rendered prior to the receipt of the opinion of February 19, 
1909 (26 Ops. Atty. Gen., 127). The matter was taken up and recom- 
stdered further in connection with the latter opinion and. In supposed 
but mistaken con4)liance therewith, the former favorable action was in 
effect set aside, although with plain uncertainty as to whether the 
opinion of February 19, 1907, was applicable, and a new opinion was 
rendered February 28, 1907 (25 A. A. G., 271), holding they were en- 
titled to identiflcati<m as Mississippi Choctaws. Unfortunately, how- 
svtr, tke applicants reapsd no benefits from this action inasmuch as 
tbe law relating to "identified*' Mississippi Choctaws required them 
to remove within six months to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country — a physi- 
cal impossibility in the time left prior to March 4, 1907. The original 
opinion of February 20, 1907, was correct and they are entitled to en- 
rollment as straight "Choctaws by blood.** 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Alko (OB Aleck), Buck. (Minor.) Post office, Spavinaw, Okla. 

Cherokee full blood. Buck Alee (Aleck), a full-blood Indian C!lierokes 
minor, lives with his guardian, Taylor Buck, also a full-blood Cherokee. 
Post office, Spavinaw. Parents of child were John Aleck and Lydia Aleek, 
full-bloods, belonging to the "Nighthawk** organization. Both earoU^d 
with Cherokee Nation as follows: John Aleck, roll No. 25596, full, age 
23, 7893; Lydia Aleck, roU No. 25597, full, age 23. John Aleck died two 
years ago after three days* illness. Lydia Aleck died November 24, 
1907, of acute tnberculosia Grandparents of Buck Aleck (living) on 
father's side are James and Nellie Aleck, full bloods, enrolled with 
Cherokee Nation, Nob. 19488 and 19489, respectively. (Grandparents of 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



222 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Buck Aleck on his mother's side, full-bloods and enrolled with Cherokee 
Nation (living), are Steve Buck and Bettie Buck, respectively, being 
• numbered 7520 and 7521 on Cherokee roll. Above by Mr. Cusey's office, 
agent of district No. 1. Verbal inquiry made at office of commissioner 
shows that this is a meritorious case. Child is not enrolled. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Alexandeb, Ben. (Minor.) 

Chickasaw by blood. Files: Record in case in Indian Office or with 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. This boy is the son of Epsie 
Alexander, a full-blood Chickasaw Indian, whose application for en- 
rollment as a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation was dismissed 
by the conmiission for the reason that she died prior to September 25, 
1902. She was survived by this child, who was bom February 12, 1809, 
and who was entitled to enrollment under the Choctaw-Chickasaw agree- 
ment No application was made, however, for the enrollment of Ben 
until June 23, 1906, when an application was submitted for him under 
the act of April 26, 1906. This application was dismissed, not because 
of any lack of right In the child, but because of a defect in said act by 
reason of which it failed to cover all classes who were entitled. This 
defect win be appar^t when it is noted that the act provided only for 
the enrollment of new-bom children of parents who had been enrolled 
as citizens or who had applications for enrollment pending at the date 
of the act. As the mother died prior to September 25, 1902, she did 
not come within either of these classes. Had she survived that date 
the child would have been enrolled as a matter of course under the act 
of April 26, 1906. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Anohwatubbe (or Woods), James N. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part III, Report March 3, 1909. This man 
was 86 years of age in 1908. He claims that his father was a fuU-blood 
Choctaw and his mother a colored woman and a slave, but that he him- 
self was never a slave. He claims that he went to the Choctaw Nation 
when a boy of 12 or 13 years and that he has lived there ever since. 
He also claims that tribal payments have been made In his name through 
his uncle; that he has voted at the Choctaw elections and has served 
on juries in the Choctaw courts. He has received no allotment whatevOT. 
His wife was a full-blood Choctaw. Their children have been trolled 
as Indians by blood and have patents. 

Note. — The difficulty in this man's case seems to be that there is a 
question conceming the status of his mother. There ie some uncertainty 
as to whether she was bom in slavery or was unlawfully held as a slave. 
If his father was an Indian citizen and his mother a free woman, he 
would be entitled to ^irollment as an Indian by blood, even though his 
mother was wholly or in part of negro descent 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Andebson, Stanley Q. 

Cherokee by blood. Files : Report Acting Ommissioner to the Five Civ- 
ilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. Qeorge Wright 
This claimant is the son of Daniel and Amanda Anderson, and there is 
no application of record. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Abohibald, Smedlow (ob Smotto ob Smallwood), age 12. 
(See photo facing this page.) 

Abohibald, Cain, age 10 (orphan). 

Abohibald, Abel (twin brother of Cain) (orphan). 

Abohibald, Etta ob Ada, age 5 (orphan). 

Abohibald, Elsie, age 17 (orphan). 

Abohibald, Joanna, age 15, (orphan). 

Choctaws and Creeks by blood. Files: Letter of Mr. Fred S. Cook, 
district agent, Checotah, Okla., dated December 18, 1908; also statement 
of Rev. J. S. Murrow made November 9, 1908, at Murrow Orphan Home. 
Exhibit F, Part I, report March 3, 1909. These orphan children failed 
to secure enrollment because no one made application for them. All are 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 




n 

1 o 

^- -r 



< o 

I- c 



Z 9 
cr 2g 



O 



q a: 



I 
o 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 223 

full-blood Indians except Etta, who Is a half-blood Creek, she being a 
half sister of the other children by the same mother, but by a different 
father, who was probably a white man. The father of all except Etta 
was a full-blood Choctaw. He died in the United States Jail at Muskogee 
in August, 1902. Their mother was a fuU-blood Creek. She is now dead, 
but lived long enough to be enrolled and to secure an allotment. These 
parents were members of the recalcitrant Snake faction. The children 
were found by Mr. C. O. Shepherd, representative of the Indian agent, 
living in destitute circumstances, partially supplied with food and cloth- 
ing by the older sisters and by the neighbors and were taken to the 
Murrow Orphan Home, near Coalgate, Okla., where they now are. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 6. 

Abnold, Richabd et al. (Including children and grandchildren.) 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This man 
claims to be about 52 years of age. He Is now on the freedman roll and 
seeks transfer to the roll of Choctaw citizens by blood. He claims that 
his father was a half-blood negre and that his mother was half- 
blood Choctaw and half-blood negro. He says that he has resided 
In the Choctaw Nation since he was 10 years old; that he has a son and 
deceased daughter, and that the latter had four children. 

Note. — It Is not clear whether his mother was a slave. If so, he was 
probably a slave himself, as he must have been bom prior to the emanci- 
pation of the Choctaw-Chickasaw slaves. If his mother was a free 
woman, there would seem to be no bar to his enrollment, assuming that 
his statements are susceptible of proof. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 7. 

Abpelab, Nicey. (Bom 1903.) 

AsPELAB, Sidney. (Born 1905.) 

BiTSHABLET, Annie. (Bora 1900.) 

Orphan, Buster. (Bora 1905.) 

Chickasaws by blood ( Snake Indian) . Statement of Gilbert H. Arpelar, 
made November 27, 1908, at office of dtsirlct Indian agent, McAlester, Okla. ; 
record in Part III, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. The two persons 
first named above are the minor children of Gilbert H. Arpelar, who Is 
enrolled opposite No. 182 on the final approved rolls as a full-blood Chick- 
asaw Indian. He explains that he did not make application for the 
enrollment of his children because he was advised not to do so by 
Eufaula Harjo, who told him not to enroll them, as they might get all 
the land back. The third person named above Is the niece of Gilbert H. 
Arpelar, and the fourth person named above is the son of Levi Orphan, 
enrolled opposite No. 311 as full-blood Chickasaw. The failure of these 
children to secure enrollment was due to the fact that their parents, 
being Snake Indians, were opposed to the distribution of the lands In 
severalty. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 4. 

ASBURT, Coo-wees-coo-wee. 

Eufaula, Okla. Creek by blood. Files: Letter January 22, 1910, from 
Acting Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes to Hon. J. George Wright. 
The name of this applicant was Included In the list mentioned In the 
above letter from Mr. Ryan, who stated that the persons referred to 
therein were Indians who were probably entitled to enrollment and who 
were not enrolled by reason of failure to make application. With his 
letter he Inclosed testimony taken In the field through an interpreter 
relating to each case. This claimant was bora in 1902* He Is a full- 
blood Creek. His mother is Sallie Johnson, who Is enrolled as a full- 
blook Creek opposite No. 8726. His father is Thomas Asbury, who was 
also enrolled as a full-blood Creek, his name appearing on the final rolls 
opposite No. 7005. The claimant Is the Illegitimate olTsprlng of these 
Indians. His failure to secure enrollment was due to the fact that the 
matter of making application was left to one of the officers, named Alex. 
Posey, who failed to report the claimant's name. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



224 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Austin (or Law ob Ix)ng), John. 

Mississippi Choctjjws. Files: Part IL Exhibit F, i-eport March 3. 
1909. It is claimed that this man failed to secure enrollment because of 
some mistake or confusion in recording his name. It is also claimed 
that his sister, Alice Austin, and Stewart Austin, are both on the final 
rolls as Mississippi Choctaws. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bacon, Lucy (memorandum 186). 

Utica, Okla. Chickasaw by marriage. File : Part I of report of March 
3, 1909. This applicant claims as an intermarried cltisien of the Chicka- 
saw Nation by her marriage August 25, 1902, with Sam J. Bacon, a white 
adopted citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, Chickasaw roll, by blood, Na 
4869. At the time of their marriage they were both residents of the 
Choctaw Nation, which leaves but the one question, Can an adopted 
citizen confer rights by marriage with a white person? This question 
was before the department in two other cases at the time this applicant 
was denied, the two other cases being in the same family and iuTolving 
the identical question. The other applicants were Belle Bacon, who 
claimed by marriage with William J. Bacon, a brother of said Sam J. 
Bacon, and Martha Black, who claimed by marriage with an uncle. of the 
Bacons. Both Martha Black and Belle Bacon were enrolled by the 
department at the same time Lucy Bacon was denied. It is thought that 
different law clerks must have liad the cases under consideration, as they 
are all alike. Certainly, from this statement of facts, wliich the records 
of the department will bear out, Lucy Bacon should l>e enrolled as a 
Chickasaw by intermarriage. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Note. — The statements appearing in connection with the cases of Lucy 
Bacon (above), Joe Omp, Mary A. Oowder, Mattie Doak, Martha 
Thompson, Jim Johnson (or Cole) et al., Richard (or Richmond) Kim- 
bale, James T. Leard, Annie Secor (later Owen), Ruflnla Bailey, and 
Sallie Williams were quoted from a memorandum furnished by Messrs. 
Apple & Franklin, of Ardmore, Okla. These statements will be found on 
the accompanying sheets, which are arranged in alphabetical order, 
according to the names of the claimants. 

Baptist, Joe C. (Age 32 in 1908.) 

Baptist, Olive (minor). 

Choctaws by blood. Files: Records of Commissioner to Five Clviliied 
Tribes. Part I, Exhibit F, reix)rt March 3, 1909. This man claims to 
be a five-eighths Choctaw and three-eighths negro. He is on the freed- 
man roll. He thinks he is entitled to be transferred to the blood rolL 
He says he has an uncle who is a full -blood Choctaw. 

Joe C. Baptist also claims that he was bom in the Choctaw Nation and 
has always lived there; also that his father was Solomon Baptist, and 
that he (the claimant) was raised by his uncle. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Babnett, Peggy. 

Oeek by blood. Files: Letter of January 16, 1909, from J. E. Tiger, 
assistant district agent, Holdenville, Okla. (See Part IV, Exhibit F, 
report March 3, 1900.) Mr. Tiger states that T. Bamett, full-blood Creek, 
appeared at the district agent^s office to secure the enrollment of his 
mother, Peggy Bamett. He says that it appears her name was omitted 
from the rolls approved by the Secretary because of the ignorance of the 
lieirs, who did not know Just what steps to take to secure her enroll- 
ment. She died July 3, 1899, and as the law provided for enrollment of 
an citizens living April 1, 1899, she was evidently entitled to be enrolled. 
Wash Bamett, roll No. 6077. Thomas Bamett, roll No. 6078, and others, 
all children of Peggy Bamett, have been enrolled. Reliable witnesses can 
be obtained. All of the above from Mr. Tiger. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Battieste, Mobbis. 

Mayautubbee, Maby. 

Hopes, Louis. 

Ohables, Sabley. C"r^r\n]o 

Digitized by VjOOQ Ic 



FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 226 

Charles^ Cilley. 

Jacob, Johnson. 

Choctaws by blood. Department flies: 151-1904 and special file 9D1- 
898. The i^ersous named above were mentioned In the resolution of a 
General Council of Choctaw Nation, approved November 5, 1903. request- 
ing the Secretary of tHe Interior to take whatever steps might be neces- 
sary to secure their enrollment as Choctaws. This resolution was recom- 
mended for adverse action on grounds which were solely Jurisdictional 
and technical without regard to the merits of the cases. It is probable 
some of these persons failed to secure enrollment, because their names 
could not be found upon the tribal rolls, or It is possible that application 
was not made In due time for their enrollment, but, in view of the fact 
that the Choctaw Council saw fit to request their enrollment, It in patent 
that their cases must be merltorloua 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 6. 

Beaheb, Maggie. 

Melvin, Okla. Cherokee by blood. Files: Report of November 15, 
1907, from Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes. Case No. 9365. Ap- 
plication for the enrollment of Maggie Beamer was made June 24, 1902; 
she Is a full-blood Indian, about 13 or 14 years of age, a daughter of Sam 
Beamer, whose name appears opposite No. 18962, upon the approved roH 
of citizens by blood of the Clierokee Nation, and one Lydia Beamer, nee 
Wesley, a Cherokee, who died about 12 years ago. Maggie Beamer is 
identified upon the 1896 Cherokee tribal roll, Tahlequah district, at No. 
319, and has continuously resided in the Cherokee Nation from the time 
of her birth until the present time. The case of this child was not, 
through inadvertence, passed upon prior to the closing of the Cherokee 
roll. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, L 

Beams, Simon. 

Choctaw by blood. Files : Part III, Report March 3, 1909. This claim- 
ant says that his father was a full-blood Choctaw ; that his mother was a 
colored woman and a slave. He claims further, however, that he was 
bom in 1875, subsequent to the emancipation of his mother, and that he 
has resided in the Choctaw Nation ; he also states that he has a cousin, 
whose name appears on the Choctaw rolls. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Bran, Gboveb C. 

Boone, Fbank and Volnet. 

Bond, Oka, et al. 

Cherokees. May 20, 1887, this applicant and his brothers and mother 
were "readmitted" to Cherokee citizenship by Cherokee commission, 
as descendants of Ruth Bean, enrolled on " Old Settler Rolls " of 1851. 
He was then 3 years old. The Cherokee act of 1894 allowed 6 months 
for removal to the nation, but excepted minors from this requirement 
He was adjudged to be entitled to enrollment by, (1) Commissioner to 
the Five Civilized Tribes October 31, 1905; (2) the Indian Office recom- 
mended that this decision be affirmed, June 14, 1906; (3) the Secretary, 
December 28, 1906, affirmed the decision of the Dawes Commission. 
These favorable decisions were based upon the theory that the act of 
June 28, 1898, requiring removal prior to that date, had no application 
to minors. Subsequently a rehearing was had, after due notice and 
hearing, and the department, March 4, 1907, rescinded its decision, con- 
curring in Indian Office and Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes 
decisions. This boy*s name Is on the Cherokee 1894 roll; also his 
parents' names. He was guaranteed the right to enrollment by the 
tribal law and deprived of that right by the Curtis act of June 28, 1898 
(80 Stat., 495). It was the intention of the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, 
to preserve rights accorded by the tribal laws, customs, and usages, and 
not to cause forfeitures. I therefore recommend that these fkcts be 
brought to the attention of Congress to the end that remedial legislation 
may be enacted. The same condition exists in case of Ora M. Bond, 
nee Camp, who was stricken from the rolls after notice, the Boone case 
being also closely analagous to this. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, !• . ^^^.^ 

Digitized by VjOO^ iC 

69282—13 ^16 o 



226 FIVE CrVIUZED tribes in OKLAHOMA. 

Beddie, John Monroe. 
Beddie, Anne (minor). 

Beddie, Groves Lee (minor). 

Clioctaws by blood. Files: Records Indian OfQce, the Commissioner 
to l<nve Civilized Tribes, iind Part L Exhibit F, report March 3, 
1909. It is claimed that the father was a one-fourth blood CJhoctaw 
and that the failure of himself and children to secure enrollment was 
due to the fact that he was Imprisoned while the case was pending. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

Bell, Granville (in prison). 

Tribe unknown. Probably Creek. Files: Letter March 7, 1909, writ- 
ten by claimant at United States penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kans. (See 
Part IV, Exhibit F. report March 3, 1000.) This man, who was In 
prison at the date of his letter. Is evidently Ignorant. He claims, how- 
ever, that he was enrolled with his mother and three brothers, upon 
the tribal rolls, and that they drew annuities. He also claims that he 
has 160 acres which he has always held as an nllotment; that there are 
two houses on the place and about 50 acres in cultivation. Also that he 
has a bam and a well and about 110 acres under fence and a few other 
Improvements. He failed to mention in his letter the tribe of which he 
claims to be a member. The practice of requiring all claimants to make 
application for thelr^ enrollment rights may have been the cause of his 
failure to secure enrollment. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bebrt, James. Age 30 years. 

Beret, Susie. Bom In 1905. 

Post office Eufaula, Okla. Creeks by blood. Files: Letter, January 
22, 1910, from Acting Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes to Hon. 
J. George Wright. The name of this claimant was on list mentlcmed in 
the above letter from Mr. Ryan, who stated that the persons referred to 
therein were Indians who are probably aitltled to enrollment and who 
were not enrolled by reason of failure to make application. With his 
letter he Inclosed testimony, taken In the field through an Interpreter, 
relating to each case. These claimants are father and daughter. James 
Berry alleges that he Is a full-blood Indian, claiming to be a one-half 
blood Chickasaw on his father's side and one-half blood Oeek on the 
mother's side. No application was ever made for his enrollment He 
Is a member of the Snake faction, which opposed the division of the 
tribal property. He now desires to be enrolled as a Creek. Susie is his 
daughter by Peggy Henry, who was his first wife, and whose name appears 
opposite No. 8633 on the final approved rolls as that of a full-blood Creek. 
James Berry states he was an infant when his father died and 15 or 16 
years of age at the time of his mother's death. He claims to have drawn 
the $100 payment which was made by the Chlckasaws In the early nineties. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Berrtman, Sallie et al. (Including her grandchildren and chlldr^i.) 

Mississippi Choctaws or Choctaws by blood. Indian Office files, land, 
50263—1906. Department, Indian Territory District, 868—1907; also 
statement of Mrs. Berryman, made November 27, 1908, at office of District 
Indian agent, McAleeter, Okla. This woman claims to be a seven-eighths 
blood Choctaw. Her children and grandchildren claim Indian blood 
through her only. The record In her case shows that she has resided con- 
tinuously In the Choctaw Nation since about 1887. She was an applicant 
for Identification as a Mississippi Choctaw, but as she did not claim to 
be a full blood It was necessary for her to furnish satisfactory proof of 
her descent from some Choctaw Indian who lived In 1830 and who was 
entitled to the benefits of Article XIV of the treaty of September 27, 
1830. While there seems to have been no doubt as to her Indian blood, 
she was unable to furnish the technical proof required with her applica- 
tion for Identification as a Mississippi Choctaw, and same was dismissed. 
It was also Impossible to enroll her as a Choctaw by blood, because her 
name could not be Identified upon the rolls prepared by the tribal authori- 
ties. Without such enrollmoit the Dawes Ck)mmls8lon was, because of 
the act of May 31, 1900, without jurisdiction to receive or consider her 
application for enrollment as a dtlz^i by blood. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, IcigitizedbyV^OOQlC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 227 

Bkvill, Joe T. 

Choctaw by intermarriage. Files: The letter of claimaat of Novem- 
ber 25, 1908. (See Part 4, Exhibit F, report, March 3, 1909.) This 
claimant states that he was sent to the penitentiary, and that, feeling his 
disgrace so keenly, he did not return to his former home; but, instead, 
to a different part of the Indian Territory ; and that when he returned 
to his home he found the rolls closed. He claims that his citizenship 
has never been questioned; that the Ohoctaws always recognize him as 
a citizen; that he married a Choctaw lady, Miss Alice Pitchlynn, in 1875; 
and that his five children are enrolled — their numbers being 13038 to 
13048, inclusive. He claims also that he was private secretary to the 
principal chief of the nation; that he served as county clerk, national 
coal weigher, and has held several minor offices besi&es, voting in every 
Choctaw election from 1875 to 1897. Upon these allegations the case 
deserves investlgaticm. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

BiLLT, Chotekey. (Minor.) 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This girl is 
about 10 or 11 years of age. Her parents are full-blood Creeks. Both 
are enrolled. She has always lived in the Creek Nation. She has siz 
brothers who are enrolled. She speaks the Creek language only. The 
failure of this applicant to secure enrollment is explained by the state- 
ment that the matter was left to the town king and that, while the other 
children were enrolled, it was not discovered that this child's name was 
omitted until it was too late to make application. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

BiBD, Ida. 

Choctaw freedman new born. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, 
from Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Application for the en- 
rollment of this applicant seems to have been filed with the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 5, 1906. Ida Bird was bom about 
June 15, 1902, was living March 4, 1906, and is the child of Sophina Hall, 
whose name appears opposite No. 834 upon the approved roll of Choctaw 
freedmen. Information from which to determine the child's right to en- 
rollment appears not to have been received until March 4, 1907, when the 
commissioner telegraphed the department and recommended that the 
name of said child be placed upon the approved roll of minor Choctaw 
freedmen. Said telegram appears to have not been received until March 
5, 1907, too late for said child to be enrolled. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bixd-Ceeek, Lewis. Weleetka, Okla. 

Creek by blood. Files: Letter January 22, 1910, from Acting Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes to Hon. J. George Wright. The name 
of this claimant was on list mentioned in the above letter from Mr. Ryan, 
who stated that the persons referred to therein were Indians who are 
probably entitled to enrollment and who were not enrolled by reason of 
failure to make application. With his letter he inclosed testimony taken 
in the field through an interpreter relating to each case. This boy was 
bom March 26, 1902. His failure to secure enrollment was due to the 
fact that his father was under the infiuence of the Snake faction. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

BULCK, Thomas F., et al. (Including descendants.) 

Choctaw or Cherokee by blood. Files : Records of Indian Office. Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, and Part I, Exhibit F, report March 
3, 1909. This man claims that his father was one-eighth Cherokee and 
his mother three-fourths Choctaw, making for himself seven-sixteenths 
Indian blood; birth and residence in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country; 
obtained some schooling at " Old (roodland " Choctaw School. Has always 
exercised privilege of Choctaw citizenship, voted, etc. Alleges his loss of 
rii^t to partisan Indian politics. Speaks Choctaw and looks to be an 
Indian. Hon. Charles Carter will probably remember seeing this mail 
at Ardmore, November 17, 1908. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 5. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



228 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Blackman, Nannie, et al. (Including 4 children.) 

Choctaw by blood or Choctaw freedman. Files: Part III, report 
March 3, 1909. This woman claims that she was 37 years of age In 1908; 
that she was born In the Choctaw nation, and that her father was a full- 
blood Choctaw. While it is true that her mother was a colored woman 
and probably a slave, her right to enrollment would not be affected 
thereby, inasmuch as she was bom after the emancipation of her mother. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 5. 

Blake, James Y. 

Chickasaw by intermarriage. Files: Records of Indian Office, ihea 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, and Part I, Exhibit F, report 
March 3, 1909. It appears that Mr. Blake is a member of the class de- 
nied enrollment in 1896, who acquired the right to enrollment by mar- 
riage subsequent to that date, but who were finally denied enrollment or 
stricken from the rolls through error, because the rights acquired by the 
later marriage were overlooked. About 12 or 15 such have been restored 
to the rolls. In other words, he had a new source of right which accrued 
after 1896. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Blue, Mattie. (Minor.) 

Choctaw or Chickasaw. (Freedman or citizen by blood.) Files: Part 
III, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. It Is reported that this child was 
bom about the year 1901 ; that she was abandoned by her parents, and 
is now living with Mrs. Mary Grayson, Ada, Okla. ; that her mother has 
been enrolled as a freedman ; and that the child has some Indian blood. 

Note. — ^Apparently this child has not been enrolled either as a fteed- 
man or an Indian. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bond (Christian name unknown, minor child of Cornelius Bond). 

Noah (Christian name unknown, minor child of Rogers Noah). 

Choctaws by blood. Files: See memorandum of statement by Chris- 
topher D. Moore, made at office of district agent, at Atoka, November 10, 
1908. Filed with Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. Said memo- 
randum is as follows : " Christopher D. Moore says that he is enrolled as 
a half-blood Choctaw Indian. He looks to me like a full blood. He states 
that he had a daughter bom In the night, who lived until 3 o'clock next 
morning. He also stated that his wife is a fulNblood Choctaw. This 
child was bom on the last day of June, 1904. No application was ever 
made to the Dawes (Commission for its enrollment, but an application 
was made to the Indian commissioner. Mr. Moore says * I am a (Choctaw 
and Chickasaw and Irishman all mixed up together.' His wife, Ida 
Moore, is on the roll, at least so I am informed. Mr. Moore also states 
that he has a half brother named (Cornelius Bond, who is enrolled as one- 
fourth blood Choctaw, and that he has or did have a daughter who was 
bom about 4 years ago and who was never enrolled. The facts are sub- 
stantially the same in both cases. Cornelius Bond was living near 
Stringtown in 1904, about 15 miles from the post office. Mr. Moore, the 
party making this statement, also resided near that place. He has come 
to-day 28 miles on horseback to see about this matter. Mr. Moore also 
states that he has a neighbor, named Rogers Moore, who had a child 
who was bom about the same time, and has never been enrolleil. Mr. 
Moore thinks that an application was made for this child, but that the 
facts were same as In the case of his own child." 

Note. — The names of Christopher D. and Ida Moore, (Cornelius Bond 
and Rogers Noah appear on the approved rolls as being one-half, full, 
one-fourth, and full-blood Choctaws, respectively. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

BooNE, Ethel. 

Benob, Young. 

Buzzard, Chables. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: R^)ort Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910. addressed to Hon. J. (5eo. Wright 
Ethel Boone, 7 years old, is the daughter of Mary Boone, a Gherokee. 
No application of record. Young Benge: Application ^or^^^^pollment 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA*. 229 

of this person was made on April 16, 1902; but no information haying 
been obtained showing that he was living on September 1, 1902, his 
application for enrollment was dismissed on February 28, 1907. Charles 
Buzzard, 9 years old, is the child of Cornelius B. Buzzard, a Cherokee. 
No application of record. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

CHOCTAWS BY BLOOD. 

Files: Records of Land Division, Indian Office. 
BoTD, Victoria, et al. 

Number of persons, 5. This woman claims to be three-fourth blood 
Choctaw. The Commipsloner to the Five Civilized Tribes, who examined 
her, stated in his filed notes: "This woman has the look of being at 
least a half-blood Indian." She says she removed to Choctaw Nation In 
1896. 

Johnson, Joseph. 

Number of persons, 1. One-fourth blood Choctaw; removed to Choc- 
taw Nation in 1896. 

CuMHiNs, James. 

Blhs, Sarah. 

Number of persons, 2. One-fourth blood Choctaw. James claims 
residence in Choctaw Nation since 1886. His sister, Sarah Elms, claims 
to be a native-bom Choctaw. 

Cummins, Nancy E., et al. 

Number of persons, 5. One-fourth Choctaw. Residence in Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country since 1880. 
Number of claimants included in this memorandum, 13. 

Bbadlet, Annie. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part III, Report March 3, 1909. ThlB 
woman claims that she was 35 or 36 years of age in 1908; that her father, 
Thomas Henderson, was a full-blood Choctaw; that her mother, Louisa 
liavine, was part colored and part Indian; and that the latter was a 
slave. She also states that she was born in the Choctaw Nation and has 
always lived there, except when absent attending school. While her 
mother was once a slave, that fact would not affect the status of the 
claimant, inamuch as she was born after the emancipation of the 
Choctaw-Chlckapaw slaves. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bradley, Annie (minor). 

Choctaw by blood. Files : Papers In office of Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes. (See memorandum recorded in Pt. IV, Ex. F, rept 
Mar. 3, 1909.) It is alleged that this girl is one-half blood Choctaw; 
that her father was Thomas Henderson, who was at one time member 
of the Choctaw Council; and that her mother, Louisa Henderson, de- 
ceased, was a Choctaw freedman. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bbassfield, Alta May, Eufaula. Okla. 

Cherokee by blood. FUeni Report of Noveml>er 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Case No. 6415. Alta May Brass- 
field was born June 16, 1902, and is a daughter of John Brassfleld, 
whose name appears opposite No. 15360 upon the approved roll of citi- 
zens by blood of the Cherokee Nation, and his wife, Mary Brassfleld, 
a noncitiz^n white woman. The first application made to the Commis- 
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes was received September 1, 1904, too 
late, under the provisions of section 30 of the act of July 1, 1902, to be 
considered. The act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 137), extended the time 
for the reception of applications for enrollment to December 1, 1906» 
but the application for the enrollment of Alta May Brassfield, which was 
retained in the files of the commission, was not discovered after the 
passage of the act of Apri 26 until subsequent tp March 4, 1907, and 
her case was not passed upon prior to the closing of the tribal rolls on 
March 4, 1907. Said child is living at the present time. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1. Digitized by V^OOQIC 



280 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Bbown, Josie et al. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, Report March 3, 190». 
This claimant wished to be transferred from the Choctaw freedman rolls 
to the roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. A hearing was 
had before the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, and it Is 
claimed that the evidence then produced shows that the children of 
Joaie Brown, with the exception of one, were recognized and enrolled 
Choctaw Indians. It is also claimed that on December 29, 1906, the 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes rendered an opinion, in which 
no mention was made of the hearing nor of the testimony adduced- 
thereat, in which he held that in accordance with the opinion of the 
Assistant Attorney General in the case of Katie Wilson et al the petition 
of Josie Brown should be denied. 

Note. — The decision in the Wilson case was based solely upon the 
fact that application was not made within the 90-day limit following 
September 25, 1902, prescribed by the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641). 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bbown, Sam. (Minor.) 

Creek by blood. Files : Part III, report March 3, 1909. This boy was 
bom prior to March 4, 1906, and his parents are full-blood Creeks. 
They failed to make application for his enrollment Both of them have 
allotments, also his brothers and sisters. This information was fur- 
nished by the father through the official interpreter at the office of the 
district agent at Bufaula, Okla. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bullocks, Robebt. 

Creek freedtuen new bom. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. The mother of Rol)ert Bullocks 
is Serena Bullocks, who, with other children, Bessie Harris, Minnie Vin- 
cent, and Lou Willie Bullocks, were first enrolled as Chickasaw freedmen, 
opposite Nos. 1693, 1694, 1695, and 1700, respectively, upon a schedule of 
Chickasaw freedmen approved by the department December 12, 1902. The 
name of Robert Bullocks appears upon a schedule of Chickasaw freedmai 
approved by the department October 15, 1903, opposite No. 4318. Serena 
Bullocks having elected to have herself and children enrolled as Creek 
freedmen. Commissioner Bixby transmitted to the department on October 
28, 1905, the record of proceedings had In the matter of their application 
for enrollment as Creek freedmen, and expressing the opinion that they 
were clearly entitled to enrollment as Creek freedmen, recommended that 
their enrollment as Chickasaw freedmen be cancelled, and stated that 
when such action was taken "a decision enrolling them as Creek freed- 
men will be rendered." He also stated that there was, at the time of his 
report, no authority of law for the enrollment of the minor child, Robert 
Bullocks, as a citizen of the Creek Nation, and recommended that his 
enrollment at No. 4318 upon the final roll of Chickasaw freedmen be per- 
mitted to stand. Forwarding the report to the department on September 
14, 1906 (I^nd 88437-1906), the Commissioner of Indian Affairs con- 
curred in the recommendation of Commissioner Blxby. October 31, 1906 
(I. T. D. 73898-1906), the department remanded the case to the commis- 
sioner for readjudication in accordance with the law existing at that time. 
January 21. 1907, the commissioner again forwarded the record to the 
department and concluded his report ns follows: 

" If the said Robert Bullocks was living March 4, 1906, then he is a 
person entitled to make application for enrollment under the provisions 
of said section (2 of act of April 26, 1906), and in my opinion his appli- 
cation made August 22, 1902, should be considered as a continuing appli- 
cation requiring action thereon as a continuing application requiring 
action thereon in the light of said section 2 of the act of Aprl 26, 
1906. ♦ ♦ ♦ 

" I have therefore notified the mother of said Robert Bullocks, who is 
a minor, that If she desires the said Robert Bullocks to be enrolled as a 
Creek freedman, it is imperative that she Immediately furnish proof that 
he was living March 4, 1906. In the event that such proof is furnished, 
I will prepare and transmit a decision similar to the decision transmitted 
here^^ith, containing an order cancelling his enrollment as a Chickasaw 
freedman, and will also transmit with said decision a separate schedule 
containing the name of Robert Bullocks. . r^mmo 

Digitized by VJvJvJV IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 231 

" In the event such proof is not furnished, and he is not enrolled as a 
Creek freedman, his enrollment as a Chickasaw freedman should, of 
course, be allowed to stand." 

In forwarding the report to the department the Indian Oflace, on Febru- 
ary 21, 1907 (Land 9aS6-1907). concurred in the recommendation of the 
commissioner, and on February 27, 1907 (L T. D. 4732-1907), the depart- 
ment approved the enrollment of Serena Bullocks, Bessie Harris, Minnie 
Vincent, and Louis WMllie Bullocks, as Creek freedmen. and granted 
authority for the cancellation of their names from the roll of Chickasaw 
freedmen. Their names appear upon the final roll of Creek freedmen 
opposite Nos. 5694 to 5697, inclusive. From affidavits executed by Serena 
Bullocks, February- 8, 1907, and Mary Bullocks February 9, 1907, it is 
shown that said Robert Bullocks was bom September 19, 1901, and was 
living on March 4, 1900. These affidavits apparently reached the com- 
missioner too late to report the case to the department and secure the 
enrollment of this child as a Creek freedman new bom and have his 
name stricken from the Chickasaw freedmen roll. Before this child is 
enrolled as a citizen of the Creek Nation, proper authority should be 
secured for the cancellation of his name at No. 4318, from the approved 
roll of Chickasaw freedmen. No application for the selection of an allot- 
ment of land In the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation for said Robert Bul- 
locks has been made. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

BUBHINGHAM, or BONAHAM, LOUANA. 

Mississippi Choctaw. Indian Office files: Land 44428-1906. Depart- 
ment I. T. D. 1046-1907. The record in this case shows that the applicant 
is a three-fourths blood Choctaw. February 13, 1907, the Secretary of the 
Interior rendered a decision directing the Commissioner to the Five Civil- 
ized Tribes to identify her and her brother as Mississippi Choctaws. Her 
brother's name appears upon the final approved roll of Mississippi Choc- 
taws, and her name can not be found thereon. It is probable that she 
did not receive the notice of her identification until within a few days 
prior to March 4, 1907, and that the time at her disposal between the date 
of said decision and the closing of the enrol lm«it work was too brief to 
permit of removal to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country. Thus she was 
deprived of the benefits which were extended to other identified Missis- 
sippi Choctaws, inasmuch as such persons were allowed six months from 
the date of their identification to remove to said country and one ydar 
to submit proof of residence ther^n. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Bttbney, Maby Gainei^ (minor). 

Chickasaw by blood. Files: Part II, Exhibit F. report March 3, 
1909. This child is the daughter of Albert Sidney Buraey, an enrolled 
and recognized citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. She was bom prior to 
March 4, 1906, and was living on that date; hence she was entitled to 
enrollment under the act of April 26, 1906. 

Note. — The Bumey family was one of the most prominent families 
In the Chickasaw Nation. 

Number of claimants in this men^orandum. 1. 
Btbbis, Hattie. 

BiTBBis, Isaac. 

BtTBBis, John. 

Choctaw freedmen, new bom. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, 
from Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. March 4. 1907, Commis- 
sioner Bixby rendered his decision granting the application for the en- 
rollment as minor Choctaw freedmen under the act of April 26, 1906, 
as amended by the act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat, 325), of Hattie, Isaac, 
and John Burrls. On that day the commissioner telegraphed the 
department of his action and recommended that their names be placed 
upon a schedule of minor Choctaw freedmen and approved by the 
department. On that day he also addressed a letter to the departm^it 
confirming the telegram and transmitting the record of proceedings In 
the case. March 9, 1907 (I. T. D. 8206-1907), the department advised 
the commissioner that his telegram was not delivered until March 5, 
1907, and no further action could be taken in the case. These children 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



232 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

were born: Hattie, April 28, 1901; Isaac, December 5, 1902; and John 
Burrls, January 29, 1904, are the legitimate children of Turner Burris, 
whose name appears opposite No. 4870 upon the approved roll of Choctaw 
freedmen, and Etta Burris, a noncitizen, and were living March 4, 1906. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

BuBRis, Turner. 

BuBBis, Hattie (minor). 

BuBRis, Isaac (minor). 

BuBBis, John (minor). 

Bubr;3, Joe (minor). 

Chlckasaws by blood. Indian Office files: Land 88739-1909. Also, re- 
port of Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, November 15, 1907. 
Also, statement of Turner Burris, Noveml)er 27, 1908, office district ag^it. 
South McAlester, Okla., Part III, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
Turner Burris is enrolled as a Chickasaw freedman, but he claims to be 
a full-blood Chickasaw Indian. He can not explain why he was enrolled 
as a freedman, but he thinks some mistake was made, as it seems other 
members of the family were Intermarried with people of negro blood. 
The examination of November 27, 1908, was made almost wholly through 
an interpreter. Burris looks to be almost, if not quite, a full-blood Indian* 
who speaks the Choctaw language and claims to speak the Chickasaw 
language also. He says that he was bom in Jacks Fork County, Choctaw 
Nation, and that he has resided in that nation all his life. He also 
claims that his father, Isaac Burris, was a full-blood Chlcksaw, who re- 
ceived the $103 payment in 1893; that his mother, Louina Brown, waa 
also a full-blood C|ilckasaw, being th6 daughter of one Tecumseh Brown, 
alleged to be a full-blood Chickasaw woman. The officers of the depart- 
ment, who have seen and spoken with Turner Burris, seem to have much 
confidence in his claim. The children, Hattie, Isaac, and John, are re- 
ferred to in the report of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, 
November 15, 1907, wherein it appears that they were found to be en- 
titled to enrollment as Chickasaw freedmen, but that his telegraphic 
report was not delivered at the office of the Secretary of the Interior 
until March 6, 1907, one day too late to permit of the approval of their 
enrollment. The names of these children will also be found on a separate 
memorandum slip, based upon the report of the Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tril)e8, November 15, 1907, in which they are referred to as 
Chickasaw freedmen. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 5. 

BuTLEB, Andy. 

BUTLBB, GeOBGAN. 

Choctaw freedmen, new bom. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, 
from the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. The application for 
the enrollment of these applicants under the provisions of the act of April 
20, 1906, was received July 25, 1906, and they were listed for enroUm^it 
on Chickasaw freedmen new-bom card. No. 409, the application reciting 
that the same was made for th6 enrollment of the children as ** freedmen 
of the Chickasaw Nation.*' February 20, 1907, the commissioner dismissed 
the application for their enrollment as Chickasaw freedmen. In accordance 
with the approved opinion of the Assistant Attorney General for the Inte- 
rior .Department, dated November 15, 1906, holding that children of C3hlck- 
asaw freedmen were not entitled to enrollment under the provisions of the 
act of April 26, 1906. In the caption of the application for the enrollment 
of these children it is rei'ited that their father is a freedman of the Choc- 
taw Nation, but In the affidavit of the mother as to the children's birth it 
Is stated that their father is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Andy 
and Georgan Butler were bom October 17, 1902, and August 7, 1905, re- 
spectively, and are children of Charley Butler and Carrie Butler, whose 
name appears opposite No. 1716 upon the approved roll of Chickasaw 
freedmen. Subsequent to March 4, 1906, it was discovered that said 
Charley Butler Is a duly enrolled Choctaw freedman, his name appearing 
opposite No. 2426 upon the approved roll of such citizens. Evidence of 
marriage on file with this office shows the lawful marriage of the parents 
of these children on April 19, 1900. The children were living on March 4, 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 238 

1906, and were lawfully entitled to enrollment as Choctaw freedmen on 
March 4, 1907. 
Number of claimants on this memorandum, 2. 

Btab^, Alexander. 

Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Records of Indian Office, Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes, and Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
This man claims to be one-half Choctaw and one-half white, his mother 
a full-blood Choctaw; that he has resided in the Choctaw-Chickasaw 
country since 1903; that he has relatives on full-blood rolls. He is a 
Choctaw interpreter. Evidently he is not enrolled because, being of 
mixed blood, he had to prove descent from an ancestor who was entitled 
to b^efits of article 14, treaty of 1830. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Oamp, Joe (M-97; L T. D. 10682, 24792-1906), C, J. Standlfer, Tuskahoma, 
Okla. 

Choctnw by blood. File: Part I of report of March 3, 1909. This boy 
is full-blood Choctaw, bom about 1889, son of Dickson (or Dixon) Camp, 
deceased, who is on tribal rolls of 1885 and 1893, Red River County. He 
was born and has always lived In the Choctaw Nation, having lived with 
C. J. Standlfer since he was about 5 years old. Joe Camp is not on any 
tribal roll, and hence the commission held it was without authority to 
enroll him. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Cabnes, Lucy (minor). 

Choctaw by blood. BMles : Statement of Rev. J. S. Murrow. made at 
Murrow Indian Orphans' Home, November 9, 1908. (See Part I, Exhibit 
F, report Mar. 3, 1909.) This child appears to be a full-blood Choctaw. 
She is now at the Murrow Indian Orphans' Home, near Coalgate. Her 
age is 6 years. Her father's name is Louis Cames, her mother's Sophia. 
This child was neglected by its parents, and in a drunken row was 
either thrown or fell into the fire with result that her arm was badly 
burned and she received scars which will remain with her through life. 
When she came to the orphans' home she had absolutely no one to care 
for her or give her a home, her father having abandoned her. She came 
from Pittsburgh County and her father now lives in Haskell County, near 
Kinta. She has not received an allotment, and it is understood by the 
managers of the orphans' home that she was never enrolled. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Oaset, Gladys Elizabeth (minor). 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This child 
was bom March 5. 1903. Her father. Arch Casey, is enrolled as a citizen 
by blood of the Cherokee Nation, opposite No. 28764. The reason given 
for failure to enroll the child is that the parents being absent from Okla- 
homa knew nothing of the rights of new-bom members of the tribe to be 
enrolled, hence no application was made In her behalf. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Ohablas, Sallie. 

Chablas, Minnie. 

Oharlas, Bettie. 

Charlas, Louisa. 

Ghablas, James. 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Report of November 15. 11)07, from Oom- 
ralssloner to the Five Civilized Tribes. On February 20, 1907 (1. T. D., 
3954-1907), the department, in accordance with an approved opinion of 
the Assistant Attorney General dated February 16, 1907, directed the 
commisi^louer to Identify the above-named applicants as Mississippi 
Choctaw Indians. The commissioner's decision, in conformity with said 
direction, was rendered February 23, 1907. These applicants live In 
Leake County, Miss., and they did not have sufficient time after their 
identification within which to remove and settle in the Choctaw-Chicka- 
saw country and make proof of such settlement in time to secure their 
enrollment by March 4, 1907. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 5. ^-^ t 

Note.— Not identical with case of Sallie Charles (<ft^gitJ9,5*fei?@)30Qle 



234 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Charles (or Jackson), Sallie. 

Choctaw by blood. BMles: Memorandum of statements by Mr. Charles 
Knapp, district agent, Hugo; and Mr. T. C. Humphrey, Ardmore, Okla. 
Part I, Exhibit P, report March 3, 1909; also statement of Wmiam 
Charley, made November 30, 1908, at Idabel, Okla., with Part III of said 
exhibit. From the above sources of information it appears that this 
woman Is about 80 years of age; that she is a full-blood Choctaw, resid- 
ing from 4 to 6 miles south of Garvin, Okla.; and that her failure to 
secure enrollment was due to the fact that she was sick at the time 
when the commission was receiving applications In that vicinity. Mr. 
Hunter, ex-candidate for governor of the Choctaw Nation, says that lie 
heard that the woman went to Garvin to be enrolled; that she stayed 
there several days without being able to get any attention from the 
enrollment officers; that other claimants and intermarried whites, beins 
more persistent, crowded her away from the officers; and that, beln^ 
sick, she returned to her home and gave up all efforts toward securing 
enrollment. Mr. Knapp, district agent, states that this woman lias five 
children and that all of them have been enrolled. Similar information 
was obtained from her son, William Charles, November 30, 1908. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum^ 1. 

Note. — This Is not identical with the case of Sallie Charles et al. 

Chester, Della. 

Choctaw freedman. Files: Reiwrt of November 15, 190T, from Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. December 26, 1902, there was 
received an application for the enrollment of Delia Chester as a Choctaw 
freedman. Said Dell|a Chester was bom May 1, 1902, was living Sep- 
tember 25, 1002, and is a child of Hester Chester, whose name appears 
opposite No. 872 upon the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen. 

Number of claimants In tills memorandum, 1. 

Chisholm, Nathaniel. 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Letter of Mr. Ryan; acting commissioner, 
dated February 3, 1910, to Commissioner Wright It appears from the 
above letter that the claimant was bom July 15, 1903. Affidavits were 
executed by his mother, Rosa Chisholm, and by one Alice Spybuck, May 
11, 1906. Mr. Kyan says that the mother is a duly enrolled citizen of 
the Cherokee Nation and that had these affidavits been filed within the 
time prescribed by the act of April 26. 1906, it wonld appear that 
Nathaniel Chisholm would have been entitled to enrollment under the 
provisions of said act. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Cloud, Jennie. 

Kingfisher, Joe. 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to Five Civilized Tribes. Case No. 7713. Address, Choteau, 
Okla. Jennie Cloud, who Is a full-blood Cherokee Indian, Is a daughter 
of Nelce Crittenden arid Kalo-muskee; she was born in the Cherokee 
Nation about 33 years ago and has continuously resided therein since 
her birth to the present time; her name is identified upon the 1880 
Cherokee tribal roll, Goingsnake district, at No. 456, as Sinthy Critten- 
ten. and upon the 1894 Cherokee pay roll, Goingsnake district, at No. 66*» 
as Jennie Kingfisher. Joe Kingfisher, born about 1892 is a son of said 
Jennie Cloud and one Josiah Kingfisher, whose name appears opposite 
No. 18653 on the approved roll of Cherokee citizens, being enrolled 
as a full blood. Said Joe Kingfisher resided in the Cherokee Nation 
continuously from his birth until his death, which occurred in 1903 or 
1904. The application for the enrollment of Jennie Cloud and Joe King- 
fisher was made April 15, 1902, but their case was, through an oversight, 
never passed upon. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Colbert, Oliver (age, 61 in 1908). 

Colbert, Robert (age, 21 in 1908). 

Choctaws and Chickasaws by blood. Files : Part III, report March 8, 
1909. The principal claimant named above alleges that his father was 
a half-blood Choctaw and a half-blood Chickasaw and that his mother 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOBiA. 235 

was half-blood Choctaw and half-blood negro. His name now appears- 
on- the freedman roll, and he has received a patent as such. He says 
that he has aunts and an uncle on the blood roll ; that he was bom in 
the Choctaw Nation and has lived there probably all his life. He 
understands the Choctaw language and has the appearance of being a 
half-blood Indian. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

OoNSOR (given name not reported; minor). 

Palmeb (given name not reported; minor). 

FAiMKSt (given name not reported; minor). 

Seminole by blood. Files: Part III, Exhibit F, report March 8. 1009. 
Mr. Levi Paddy, a full-blood Seminole, stated, November 25, 1908, at 
office of district Indian agent, Holdensvllle, that he knows of certain 
children who were bom, as he thinks, at such times as w6uld entitle^ 
them to enrollment. Of these, Reuben Ck>nsor has one child and Seaborn 
Palmer two. The parents w«:e prevented from making application for 
. them because the high water impeded the way to such an extent that they 
could not come to make application. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 8. 

CoBDRAT, Clem. 
Cahoe, Nanct. 

COOKINGHEAD, JeSSE. 

Catcher, Charley (or Teehee). 

Christie, . 

Coffet, George. 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to Five Civil- 
ized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright, 
dem Cordray, son of Thomas Cordray, bom March 5, 1904 : No applica- 
tion of record. Nancy Canoe, 8 years old, daughter of Aisle Canoe, now 
Swimmer: No application of record. Jesse Cooklnghead, son of Sarah 
Daylight: No application of record. Charlie Catcher (or Teehee) : No 
application for this enrollment appears to have been made, but his name* 
is on the 18S0 and 1896 census rolls, and it seems that be is now living. 

Christie, child of George and Lucy Christie: No application of 

record. George Coflfee: Application for enrollment was dismissed Feb- 
ruary 28, 1907, on account of lack of information that he was living on. 
September 1, 1902. A letter has recently been received from him, show- 
ing that he is living at this time. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 6. 

CoBAR, Susie (minor). 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This child 
is about 11 or 12 years of age. Her parents are full-blood Creeks. Both 
have been enrolled. Her failure to secure enrollment Is chargeable to* 
the fact that her parents affiliated with the "Snake faction," which 
opposed enrollment. The examiner who Investigated this case says: 
"Both the parents of this child appear to be, as their enrollment will' 
undoubtedly show, full-blood Creeks, and their daughter Susie, for 
whom application is made for enrollment, is undoubtedly. In my opinion^ 
a full-blood Creek. She Is apparenty between 10 and 11 years of age." 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Gbowder, Mary A. (Memorandum 279), Roswell, Okla. 

Choctaw by marriage. Files: Part I of report of March 3, 1909. 
"This applicant claims as intermarried Choctaw through marriage to 
Green Crowder, finally enrolled Choctaw by blood. He had been mar- 
ried and divorced prior to his marriage to Mary A. Crowder, but the 
divorce having been granted in the Choctaw tribal court, and thoro 
records having been all sent to Tuskahoma and piled Into the vault 
therein in an indiscriminate mass, and there being nobody In charge 
thereof to get a copy of the record from, we had to resort to secondary 
evidence to prove this divorce, and the commissioner denied applicant 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



236 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 

on February 26, 1907, becaose no certified copy of the decree of divorce 
had been filed. Secondary evidence may be introduced if the records 
are destroyed, and these records were as good as destroyed, owing to 
their condition Incident to the breaking up of the tribal govermnent 
which was to have taken place March 4, 1906. The commission's de- 
cision denying applicant was affirmed March 4, 1907. but it is believed 
that the same reached the department at so late a date that it could not 
have proper consideration. Hundreds of persons have been enrolled on 
evidence less than was submitted In this case. In all justice Mary A. 
Crowder should be enrolled. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Cbutchfield, Geobge Washington (minor). 

BiTTEB, David (minor). 

Ohoctaws by blood. Indian Office files, Land 75115-1909. Departmoit 
files, 5-51; D--8608. These children are cousins, the former being the 
son of Ida Crutchfield, and the latter the son of Ella Ritter, deceased. 
These women were sisters. Ella Ritter died too early to be enrolled, 
but the name of Ida Crutchfleld was placed upon the final rolls approved 
by the Secretary. Subsequ^itly her name was stricken from those rolls 
in supposed compliance with an opinion rendered February 19, 1907, by 
the Attorney General of the United States. Later her name was restored 
to the rolls, following the decision of the Supreme CJourt of November 
30, 1908, in the Goldsby case (211 U. S., 249). The two children named 
above have the same natural right to enrollment that Ida Crutchfield has, 
but they were simply denied enrollment, without prior favorable action, 
by reason of said opinion. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Da-nu-wa, John (minor). 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Cherokee N. B. 3951, records in office of 
Commissioner for the Five Civilized Tribes. Application was made for 
the enrollment of this child under the act of April 26, 1906. It is a full- 
blood Cherokee, of parents who belonged to the Knight Hawk Band, who 
opposed enrollment and refused to give any information in regard to the 
child or to apply for its enrollment. As the time for closing the rolls 
drew near the application of this child had to be rejected for lack of 
information. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Davis, Hattie A. 

Chickasaw by blood. Files : Part II, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
This woman claims enrollment as a Chickasaw freedman. Her failure 
to secure enrollment was due to delay in making application. Her 
mother was a slave, and it is probable she was also. She claims that 
her sister, Rosle Lamey, is on the Chickasaw freedman roll. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Davis, John. 

Creek by blood. Files: Records of Land Division, Indian Office; also 
records of Indian Territory Division, Secretary's Office. This man was 
a full-blood Indian. He was living in the Creek Nation March 8, 1900, 
and was hence entitled to enrollment under section 29 of the Creek 
agreement, which was entered into with the Indians on said date. The 
words "now residing" must necessarily have had reference to the date 
of the writing because certain people were then being considered. Said 
section did not have reference to some undefined class who might qualify 
at a later date. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Indian Territory Division 7562-1902. 

Case returned to Indian Office, with departmental letter. January 20, 
1903 (96 press-copy book, I. T. D., 126). 

Land No. (I. O.) 70980-1902. Indian Office letter, December 5. 1902, 
forwarding case to department. 

Note. — Application was made by Jeff Davis for enrollment of John, 
his minor child. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 237 

DoLK, Mattie (7-2526) ; post office, Muskogee. Okla. 

Choctaw by marriage. File : Part 1 of report of March 3, 1909. "Ap- 
plicant claims by virtue of marriage with Dennis James. Choctaw by 
blood, deceased, identified on 1893 Choctaw roll. She has three children, 
Allie, Melinda, and Eve James, on final Choctaw roll by blood, by this 
marriage. Applicant denied and decision affirmed March 4, 1907, because 
of being possessed of negro blood. Otherwise case is perfect. We believe 
no authority of law for denying on fhis account — ^purely prejudice. She 
was lawfully married and was United States citizen at the time, and 
lawfully became Choctaw citizen by the marriage." 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

DOOTOB, JiMMIE. 

Choctaw or Chickasaw by blood. Files: Part III, report March 8, 
1909. It is stated that this claimant lives at Tl, Okla. ; that he was too 
much of a *' backwoodsman " to look after his enrollment ; that his chil- 
dren have been enrolled; and that he had the same mother as Turner 
Burris, whose case is the subject of a separate memorandum. 

Note. — From the memorandum in the Turner Burris case it appears 
that the applicant has a strong claim. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Downing, Ambbose. 

Downing, Jesse. 

Creeks by blood. Files: Part III, Report March 3, 1909. The state- 
ments which follow were furnished by Ambrose Downing, Jesse being his 
younger brother. He is the son of Barnett and the nephew of Marchie 
Thompson. The latter drew the $14.44 payment for him. His mother 
was a white woman. He lived with Marchie Thompson when a boy. He 
also has other relatives whose names are on the rolls. He was bom in 
the Cherokee Nation and has lived In the Creek Nation for the past 15 
years, being now 28 or 29 years old. He was allowed to attend the Creek 
schools. This claimant gives as reference Jack Thompson, of Checotah, 
and Sam Hayes, of Okmulgee, the latter being the official Interpreter for 
the district agent at that point. 

Number, of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Downing, Lauba. 

Eluok, Buck. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Reports Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13 and 15, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George 
Wright. Laura Downing, child of Amanda Downing, a Cherokee. No 
application of record. Buck Elllck, age 7 years; parents are dead and 
names can not be Identified on roll. He Is, however, apparently a full 
blood. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

DUNFOBD (Christian name unknown.) (Minor child of Perry Dunford.) 

(Choctaw freedman. Files: Statement of R. L. Tumbull, ex-Indlan 
policeman of Bokchlto, made at Atoka, Okla., November 10. 1908. (See 
part 1, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909.) Mr. Tumbull's statement is 
as follows : ** It seems that all of the children are enrolled with the 
exception of this one. The father and mother are on the roll as Choc- 
taw freedmen. This child who Is not enrolled Is either the oldest or next 
to the oldest girl. The family resides 2 miles south of Bokchlto, Okla." 
Note. — ^Thls child is probably entitled to enrollment If the case could 
be taken up and disposed of on Its merits. Very likely her failure to 
secure enrollment was due to some technical cause, sujch as lack of appli- 
cation or the' like. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

DuifFOBD, Lena. 

Choctaw freedman. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Application was received Decem- 
ber 28, 190^ for the enrollment of Lena Dunford, bom December 10, 1896, 
and who was living September 25, 1902, as a Choctaw freedman. Lena 
Dunford Is a child of Terry Dunford, whose name appears opiwsite No, 
8405 upon the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen, and Louisa Dunford, 
nee Hicks, to whom Terry Dunford was married about 1891 or 18pl2. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, L Digitized by vjOO^ IL 



'238 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

EiDWARDd. James. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Memorandum made at office district Indian 
agent. Antlers, Okla., November 18, 1908, Part I. Exhibit F, report 
March 3, 1909. Mr. H. B. Kinsell, Antlers, Okla., says that James 
Edwards is a Choctaw Indian, entitled to enrollment as a newborn 
Choctaw; that the failure to oiroU him was due to the fact that his 
parents were ignorant and did not understand how to secure his ^iroll- 
ment; that proof was made, but too late to be considered. The child's 
father is Ben Edwards. The family probably resides at or near Ham- 
don, Okla. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

IBzELL, Sabah Jane. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part II, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
This woman claims she is one-fourth or more Choctaw by blood. She 
says that she was bom in Hancock County, Miss., but that she has 
lived in the Indian Territory near Davis nearly 20 years. She also 
claims that she was adopted by white people named Colhoune and 
brought up by them. Her statements are corroborated by the affldayit 
of Dr. Colhoune, of Fox, Okla. Probably she was denied enrollment be- 
cause of the jurisdictional clause in the act of May 31, 1900, or because 
of inability to furnish technical proof of descent from a beneficiary 
under article 14, treaty, 1830. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

ITagin, Jane, et al. (Including children and grandchildren.) 

Chickasaw by blood. Files : Part III, report March 3, 1909. The princi- 
pal applicant in this case claims that father was a Chickasaw Indian 
named Kello BroMrn. He was the son of an Indian woman and a negro 
man. She also claims that her mother, Lena Brown, was a slave. In Tlew 
of the fact that Jane Fagin was 42 years old in 1908, she must have been 
bom sometime during the year 1866, and hence either before or after 
the emancipation of the Choctaw-Chickasaw slaves. She also claims that 
she was enrolled with her mother 20 years ago as a Chickasaw %y blood, 
and that she has drawn money with the Chickasaws. Also that she was 
bom in the Chickasaw Nation and has always lived therein. Her name 
now appears on the Chickasaw freedman roll. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 7. 

Fabnes, Billy. (Fifteen-sixteenths blood Choctaw.) 

Bekd, Victobia. (Fifteen-sixteenths blood Choctaw.) 

Baptist, Fbizene. (Fifteen-sixteenths blood Choctaw.) 

Baptist, Joseph. (Full-blood Choctaw.) 

Fabnes, Medline. (Wife of Billy Fames.) 

Baptist, . (Child of Frizene, bom 1906.) 

Gabdneb, Ren a. (Fifteen thirty-seconds Choctaw; child of Victoria Reed, 
bom Febmary, 1907.) 

Bubkhabdt, Lizzie. (One-half Choctaw; died In 1905, former wife of R. B. 
Qardner.) 

Fabnes, Thomas. (Brother of Billy Fames, fifteen-sixteenths Choctaw, and 
child bora in 1905.) 

Jaoeson, . (Child of a full-blood Choctaw named Marie Oylen Jackson.) 

Fabve, Seymoub. (Uncle of Billy Fames, and 6 minor children.) 

Fabve, Eabnest. (Nephew of Billy.) 

Mississippi Choctaws and Choctaws by blood. FUes : Records of Com- 
missioner to Five Civilized Tribes ; also statement of Billy Fames, made 
November 11, 1908, Hugo. Okla., Part I, Exhibit F, report March 8, 1909. 
These claimants are undoubtedly Choctaws by blood. They have the 
appearance of Indians and speak the Choctaw language. All se^n to 
have been identified as Mississippi Choctaws. Some have received their 
land. Others retumed to Mississippi before the approval of their enroll- 
ment, claiming they were compelled to do so in order to make a living. 
Some seem to be the oflTsprlng of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws, but have 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 289 

been omitted from enrollment They were doubtless unfortunate and 
Ignorant and for those causes failed to take all necessary steps to secure 
final enrollment. Should not the United States Government do some- 
thing for these people If they have no claim against the Choctaw Nation. 
Number of claimants referred to In this memorandum, 12. 

Fabve, Chaeles. (Seven-eighths blood. 

Fabve, MA2ENE. ( Seveu-elghths blood.) 

Bonds, Richabd. (Seven-sixteenths Choctaw.) (Son of Mazene by white 
father.) 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files : Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
This family undoubtedly consists of Choctaw Indiana They live In 
Oklahoma and have resided there since 1903. They seem to have failed 
to secure enrollment because not able to show themselves either full-blood 
Indians or descendents of persons entitled to Identification under article 
14, treaty of September 27, 1880. It appears that they are members of a 
band of Indians known as the Bay St. Louis Indians, the original mem- 
bers of which were entitled to the benefits of said article 14. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

Fabve, Clemogeke. 

Fabve, Elizabeth. 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to Five Civilized Tribes. On February 27, 1907 (I- T. D. 
4712, 4764, 4770, 5186, 5238, 5432-1907, 1806-1906, 4224-1907), the de- 
partment reversed the decisions of the commission and the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, dated March 30, 1904, and December 
31, 1906, respectively, rejecting the applications of Clemogene and Eliza- 
beth Farve, among others, for Identification as Mississippi Choctaws, 
and ordered said applicants Identified as such. In accordance with said 
decision the commissioner, on March 2, 1907, rendered his decision Iden- 
tifying these applicants as full-blood Mississippi Choctaws. Said appli- 
cants were notified on March 2, 1907, of their Identification as Missis- 
sippi Choctaws and advised of what action was necessary on their part 
to protect their rights. It is apparent that said applicants did not have 
time to remove lo and make settlement in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country 
and to make proof of such settlement within time to have their enroll- 
ment approved by March 4, 1907. 

Approximate number, 2. 

Fabve, James. (Adult.) 

Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3. 1909. 
This man is wholly, if not quite, a full-blood Choctaw. He was evidently 
refused identification as a Mississippi Choctaw because he was not a 
full blood. His quantum of Indian blood was then supposed to be 
seven-eighths Choctaw. He claims now that he was mistaken when he 
gave his original testimony, and that he should have reported both 
parents as full bloods. Being a descendant of Yearboy family of Bay 
St. Louis, Kans., It Is' probable that he was entitled to Identification as 
a Mississippi Choctaw, as descendant of one entitled to the benefits of 
article 14, treaty of September 27, 1830. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Fabve, James. (Minor.) • 

Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
By statement of Amelia Far\'e, who says that her own name Is on the 
rolls, this boy is the son of her sister and " Is almost a full-blood " Choc- 
taw. Like other persons of the family, he Is a resident of the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Fabte or Faybe, Loitibia. 

Miasissippl Choctaw. Files : Part IV, Exhibit F, report, March 3, 1909. 
This woman is a full-blood Choctaw, having been Identified as such by 
the Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes. She failed to secure enroll- 
ment because she did not furnish proof of settlement in the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country in the time prescribed by law. 

Number of claimants hi this memorandum, 1. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



240 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Favre (Nee Bazetta), Stella. (One-half blood Choctaw.) 

Favbe, Seymoub. (One-half blood Choctaw.) 

Favbe, Terbse. (One-half blood Choctaw.) (Daughter of Stella.) 

Faybe, Mabselene. (Full-blood Choctaw.) 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Department, Part I, Exhibit F, report, 
March 3, 1909. This family lives near Ardmore. Apparently some of 
the members have been identified as Mississippi Choctaws but not eo- 
rolled as such. They seem never to have been identified even. • The 
family removed to the Indian Territory about 1902. If they are not 
entitled to share in the property of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, should 
not the Unted States purchase a small tract for each? 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Fish, Eu. (Wetumka, Okla.) 

Creek by blood. Files: Letter, January 22, 1910, Acting Commissioner 
to Five Civilized Tribes to Hon. J. George Wright. The name of this 
claimant was on list mentioned in the above letter from Mr. Ryan, who 
stated that the persons referred to therein were Indians who are prob- 
ably entitled to enrollment and who were not enrolled by reason of fail- 
ure to make application. With his letter he inclosed testimony taken in 
the field through an interpreter, relating to each case. This boy was 
bom in 1902 or 1903. He is a full-blood Creek. His father is Weilumka, 
^rolled opposite No. 9382 on final approved roll. His mother is a Creek 
woman named Sylla, whose name appears <m the final approved rolls 
opposite No. 9383. Both parents are enrolled as full-blood Creeks. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Foley, Salina. (Minor.) 

Creek by blood. Files: Letter of December 18, 1908, from Fred S, 
Cook, district agent, Checotah, Okla. (See Exhibit F, Part IV, report 
March 3, 1909.) Mr. Cook reports that this child is a full-blood Indian, 
who through Ignorance or mistake has been left off the approved rolls, 
and that the parents belong to the Snake faction of Indians, and that 
every consideration should be given this case, for the reason that this 
aflaiiation of the parents prevented the enrollment of the child and the 
allotment of land to her. This child, 10 years old, is the daughter of 
John Foley, whose i)ost-office address is Hanna, Okla. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

FoLSOME, Dave. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: See statement made to J. W. Howell in 
November, 1909, at Tishomingo. Okla., Exhibit F, Part II. It is claimed 
that this man is a full-blood Choctaw; that he killed a man years ago 
and fied the country; that he came back about 1896; that he did not 
know that he would have to make application to the Dawes Commission 
for enrollment ; and that accordingly he filled to make application to It 

Note. — It is probable that his name, owing to his absence, was not 
entered on the rolls prepared by the tribal Authorities prior to the time 
when the Government of the United States assumed the work of making 
the rolls. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

FoLSOM, David H. (See Op. A. A. G. Feb. 9, 1907, 25 A. A. G., 105.) 

Note. — This may be the David H. Folsome referred to in letter of 
February 17, 1909, from Guy P. Cobb, of Ardmore, Okla. (See Part IV, 
Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909.) Mr. Cobb says that the reason for 
the action of the department in refusing to enroll Folsom was that his 
name did not appear on the tribal rolls. He states, however, tliat Fol- 
som Is identified by an act of the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation 
and by the afiidavits of at least two ex-governors of the Chickasaw Nation. 
He says also that Hon. Charles D. Carter is well and personally ac- 
quainted with David H. Folsom. 

Folsom was finally denied enrollment under the act of May 81, 1900, 
which limited the Jurisdiction of the Dawes Ommisslon to persons 
having tribal enrollment 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IX OKLAHOMA. 241 

FOSTKB, LELA. 

Choctaw by blood, or Choctaw freedman. f'iles: Part II, Exhibit F, 
report March 3, 1909. This woman claims to be 38 years old (in 
1908) ; that she is the daughter of Joe James, a full-blood Chickasaw, 
and Julia Love, an ex-slave; that she (the claimant) has a half sister 
named Alice James (now married) and a brother, Sam James, and that 
both are enrolled. It appears that she was bom in the Indian Territory ; 
that she was taken to Texas when a small child ^ that she retuiiied to 
Indian Territory when 10 years old: that she was left an orphan at 
the age of 12; and that she was reared at the orphan home at Lebanon. 
Field notes states that she shows Indian blood very much, but that she 
also shows negro blood. Apparently she is the child of an Indian by a 
free woman of color. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1. 

Foster, Sallie. 

Creek by blood, illes: Report of November 15, 1907, from Commis- 
sioner to Five Civilized Tribes. Creek N. B. No. 370. June 19, 1906, 
application was made to the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
for the enrollment of Sallie Foster, bom January 17, 1907, as a citizen 
by blood of the Creek Nation under the act of April 20, 1906. Said 
Sallie Foster is a child of Noah Foster, whose name was identified 
upon the approved roll of Creek Indians opposite No. 477, and Jennatta 
Foster. February 27, 1907, the commissioner rendered his decision 
denying the application for the enrollment of said child for the reason 
that suflScient information was not secured to determine whether or 
not said Jennatta Foster was a Creek citizen, or whether or not she and 
Noah Foster were married. Said decision was, on that date, forwarded 
to the department. March 4, 1907, the parents of this child appeared 
before the commissioner and gave testimony in the matter of its enroll- 
ment, for which it was found that the child's mother Is enrolled upon 
the approved roll of Creek citizens opposite No. 3907, as Jennette Johnson, 
and on that date the commissioner wired the department as follows: 
"Referring to Creek new-born case of Sallie Foster, transmitted on 
February 27, 1907, together with decision denying for insufficient evi- 
dence, the parents of said child have this evening appeared, and from 
their testimony mother is identified as Jennette Johnson, opposite Creek 
Indian roll No. 3907. I therefore recommend that name of said Sallie 
Foster be this day placed upon Creek new-bom schedule and approved. 
Child 1 year old. Sex, female; blood, full; card No. 370." Fearing 
th^t the telegram would reach the department too late, the commissioner 
wired his employee, then in Washington, calling his attention to the tele- 
gram, which was quoted him, in order to secure, if possible, the enroll- 
ment of this child. The telegram probably not having reached the 
department until after March 4, 1907, the department on that date 
(I. T. D. 7830-1970), affirmed the commissioner's decision. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Fox, Sallie. ^ 

Flint, Leo W., et al. Cherokees by blo(»d. Files : Report Acting Commissioner 
to Five Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George 
Wright Sallie Fox, deceased. Information as to this case Is not 
sufficient to determine the nature of her right. No application of record. 
Lee W. Flint et al. This claimant and sister, Mary A. Nichols, and 
brother (name not given), admitted by commission in 1896. No other 
application of record. This case very doubtful. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Fbank, Della. (Half-blood Creek.) (Minor.) 

Creek by blood. Fllep: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This child's 
case was brought to the attention of the department by the statements 
of her uncle Noah Frank, who is enrolled as a half-blood Creek. Delia 
Frank Is the daughter of Wilson Frank (or Wilson Baby), a full-blood 
Creek, and Rose Frank, a white woman. Her parents separated and her 
mother took charge of her. No application was made by the citizen 
members of the family because none of them knew where the child was 
living. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum. 1. 



69282—13 ^16 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



242 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Frenchman, Dennis. 

Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Records in Indian OflBce, with Commis- 
sioner to Five Civilized Tribes, and Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 
1909. This man claims to be a full-blood Choctaw and that he re- 
moved to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country in 1903. He says that he has 
full sisters — Mary Thomas and Mary Jane Jefferson — who are on final 
rolls as full bloods. 

NoTK. — These names are found on the Mississippi Choctaw rolls as full- 
blood Choctaws. Failure to secure enrollment probably due to failure to 
show that he was a full blood. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Gamblin, John IL. et al. 

Choctaws by blood. Indian Office flies: Land 242o6-1909. These ap- 
pllcnnts were adjudgtHl to be entitled to enrollment by the Commissioner 
to Five Civilized Tribes February 14. 1907, This action w:is taken under 
certain rulings of the department relating to the Jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of tlie Interior, pursuant to which It was the practice to hear 
and adjudicate such cases upon their merits notwithstanding prior 
adverse action. This construction was not concurred In by the Attorney 
General, who, in an opinion rendered February 19, 1907, held, or at 
least seemed to hold, that the Secretary of the Interior had been exercis- 
ing? jurisdiction In cases wherein he had no authority to act. As a 
result of said opinion of the Attorney General, the Secretary of the 
Interior, on March 1, 1907, solely on jurisdictional grounds rescinded 
the favorable decision theretofore rendered by the Commissioner to 
Five Civilized Tribes, the result being that the applicants failed to 
secure enrollment. Assuming the correctness of the commissioner's 
decision, they were entitled, upon the merits of their cases, to be 
enrolled. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, approximately, 5. 

Garland (Christian name not known). (Minor.) 

Choctaw by blood. Files: See memorandum of Information obtained 
at Hugo, Gkla., November 12, 1912, with Part I, Exhibit F, report of 
March 3, 1909. This child is entitled to enrollment and is now living 
with a family near NeshoII, Okla. Mr. Hudson ha^ been informed that 
the child is the offspring of Simon Garland but that the facts concerning 
its birth were of such a nature that they were suppressed and no ap- 
plication made in order to save the family pride. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Gatewood. Alice, et al. 

Chickasaw. She seeks transfer from Chickasawfreedman roll to Chick- 
asaw blood roll, claiming that her mother was a full-blood Indian and 
a blood relation of Sarah Jane Sanders, on approved Chickasaw rolls 
opposite No. 2093. This claim includes the children of Alice Gatewood 
and her grandson, Theodore D. Roosevelt Logan. No. 6. 

Geggs, . (Son of Gilbert or Joseph Geggs.) 

Choctaw by blood. Flies : Statement of Edward Dukes, ex-governor of 
the Choctaw Nation, made November 13, 1908, at office of district Indian 
agent, Antlers, Okla. Mr. Dukes states that this claimant, Mr. Geggs, 
Is his nephew and he believes him to be a one-fourth blood Choctaw. 
Geggs married a Choctaw woman and therefore claims both by blood and 
Intermarriage. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

GrvENS, Luther. 

GrvENs. (Christian name unknown). (Deceased.) 

Creeks by blood. Files: Part III, reported March 3. 1909. It is 
claimed that Luther Givens was born in February, 1906 ; that his father 
is enrolled as a Creek cXUzen ; that his mother is a full-blood Creek, and 
alsfi enrolled. It is also claimed that no application was made for the 
enrollment of the child, because the parents were prevented by high 
water from meeting the field party which was in charge of enrollment In 
the Creek Nation. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FI\T3 CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 243 

GoiNS, Ransom, et aL 
GoiNS, Reuben, et aL 
Ctanra^ Bansoii, Jr. 

SouTHEBN, Mb«. William. 

Choctaws by blood. Files : Part II, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
Ransom and Reuben Golns are brothers. Mrs. Southern Is their sister. 
All claim to be half-blood Choctaws. The two men appeared at the 
office of the district Indian Agent, at Pauls Valley, Okla., November 20, 
1908, and made statements as to their claims. Both nie obviously some 
kind of Indian blood, and Ransom speaks the Choctaw language. Resi- 
dence, Indian Territory since 1875. Reuben also claims that he has a 
right as an intermarried Chickasaw, by reason of marriage to his present 
wife. Ransom Golns, Jr., is a son of Ransom Golns, sr. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 4. 

Gbass, Josie. 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 15, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright. 
Josie Grass, age 5 years, child of Tom and Betsy Grass, Cherokees. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Grazier, Viola, Afton, Okla. 

Cherokee by blood. Files : Report of November 15, 1907, from Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tril)es. Case No. 4079. Viola Grazier was 
lM)m August 26, 1902, and is a child of Homer H. Grazier, whose name 
appears upon the approyed roll of citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation, 
opposite No. 9841, being enrolleii as three-eighths Indian, and one Dora Gra- 
zier, a noncitizen of the Cherokee Nation. The application for her enrollment 
was made October 3, 1902, and on February 20, 1907, the former commis- 
sioner rendered his decision ordering her enrolled as a citizen by blood of the 
Cherokee Nation. No protest against her enrollment was filed by the attor- 
ney for the Cherokee Nation, but through oversight shewns not place^l upon 
a schedule of Cherokee citizens and forwarded for departmental approval. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Oreenleaf, MXky W. 

Gbecnleaf. Robert W. (Minor.) 

Greenleaf, Margaret M. (Minor.) 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Record on file In Indian Office. ^(See also 
opinion of A. A. G. for Interior Department, December 14. 1904.) These 
claimants are undoubtedly Cherokees by blood. Mary W. Oreenleaf is 
the mother of the other applicants and is the daughter of Amos William- 
son, a white mnn, and a Cherokee woumiu named Margaret Williamson, 
now Brackett, whose name appears upon the confirmed Cherokee roll of 
1880. The parents separated in 1855, and Mary W. Oreenleaf was taken 
from the Cherokee Nation, of which she was a citizen by birth, by her 
father to one of the States. Her Cherokee nativity and blood were con- 
cealed from her until September, 1900. when they were disclosetl to her 
by her stepmother. As api)ears from the opinion of the A. A. G., referred 
to above, the applicants were entitled to enrollment as a matter of right, 
but that for jurisdictional reasons the commission to the Five Civilized 
Tribes had no authority to enroll them. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 4. 

Haix, Estoria. 

Choctaw freedman, new born. Files: Rei>ort of November 15. 1907, 
from Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Application for the en- 
rollment of this applicant seems to have been filed with the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 5. 1906. Estoria Hall was born 
May 2, 1900. was living March 4. 1906, and Is a minor child of Thomas 
Hail and Mnlinda Hall (enrolled as Malinda Jones), whose names appear 
opposite Nos. 5a.S0 and 819, resi)eetlvely, upon the approved roll of Choc- 
taw freedmen. Information fnmi which to determine the child's right to 
enrollment api)ears not to have becHi received by the commissioner until 
March 4. 1907, when Mr. Bixby telegraphed the department and recom- 
mended that the name ot said child be placed upon the approved roll of 
minor Choctaw freedmen. The telegram ap{)ears to have not been re- 
ceived until March 5, 1907. too late for said child to l)e enrolleii. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum. 1. Digitized by V^OOQIC 



244 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Habbis, Emma. (Born 18S3.) 

BoBSHE, Daisy. (Born 1885.) 

Choctaws by blood. Files : Records of Commissioner to Five Civilized 
Tribes; ulso statement of Emma Harris made Noveml)er 11, 1908, at 
Hugo, Oljla., Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. Emma Harris 
claims to be more thnn half-blood Choctaw. The Indian interpreter at 
Hugo says she loolis to be a three-fourths blood Choctaw. She is also 
partly of African descent. She has some l^nowledge of the Choctaw 
language. She claims to be the daughter of Nuby Folsom, a full-blood 
Choctaw, and Martha Jackson, who was of mixed Choctaw and negro 
blood. Daisy Borshe is a full sister of E^ma Harris. Both are now 
enrolled as Choctaw freedmen. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Habbis, Tjiomas. (Probably a minor.) 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Records of Dawes Commission; also state- 
ment of MaJ. John Farr, made November. 13, 1908, at office of district 
Indian agent. Antlers, Okla., Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
This claimant is said to be the illegitimate child of Thomas Pitchin (or, 
possibly, Pritchler or Pitchlynn). The Iwy's father was undoubtedly a 
citizen. He lived in the Apukshmubbee region. The claimant's grand- 
father was a brother of Col. Thomas Pritchler. MaJ. Farr knows the 
facts in this case, because he is a member of the same family by mar- 
riage. It is understood that Maj. Farr was at one time assistant district 
agent at Antlers. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Habbison, Cabl. 

Habbison, Bbille. 

Choctaw freedmen, new born. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, 
from Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. It appears that appLlca- 
tious were filed with the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on 
March 5, 1906, for the enrollment of Carl and Brillie Harrison. They 
are the children of Brigham Y. and Mary Harrison, whpse names ap- 
pear opi)osite Xos. 1953 and 3489 respectively, upon the approved roll 
of Choctaw freedmen. They are minors, aged about 4 and 3 years re- 
spectively, and were living March 4, 1906. Sufficient information was 
not obtained until March 4, 1907, to determine the right of these children 
to Enrollment, and on that day Commissioner Bixby wired the depart- 
ment and recommended that their names be placed upon the approved roll 
of minor Choctaw freedmen; but the telegram appears to have not been 
received until March 5, 19()7, too late for said children to be enrolled. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Habton, Fbanklin M. et al. 
Habton, John F. 
Habton, James W. 
Habton, Racheal S. 
Habton, Maby M. 
Habton, Nancy E. 
Habton, Bebtha M. 
Habton. Geobge Pope. 
Dabken, Sabah Jane, et al. 

Thompson. John T., et al. 

Choctaws bv blood and intermarriage. Indian Office files: Land 
143S7-1907, 21353-1907, 15812-1907. The majority of applicants named 
above claiming enrollment as citizens by blood were found to be entitled 
to enrollment as such in a decision rendered by the Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes. January 10, 1907. March 2, 1907 (326 p. c. book 
372), the Secretary reversed the favorable decision theretofore rendered 
by Mr. Bixby. This adverse action was taken in supposed but mistaken 
compliance with the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, 
dated February 19, 1907. Said opinion had no application to these persona 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, WJIgJ^P^tp^cW 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 245 

Bmsry, Elizabeth Janb. 

MooBE (or Epps or Henry), Maby (and six children). 

Choctaws and Chlckasaws by blood. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, re- 
port March 3, 1909. Tho principal applicant named above claims to be 
a half-blood Indian, alleging that her father was Thomas I. Yakitubbi, 
a full-blood Indian, who was part Choctaw and part Chickasaw. She 
says that she was left an orphan at 10 years of age; that her father 
has two half brothers living, who are full-blood Indians, and that their 
names appear on the final rolls. The second claimant named above is the 
daughter of Mrs. Henry. This family claims continuous residence in 
^e Choctaw-Chickasaw country. Mrs. Henry having been bom in the 
Chickasaw Nation. ' 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 8. 

HiBBS, Maby A. (Post office, Big Cabin, Okla.) 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Records of Indian Office and Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes. This woman states that she is a sister of John 
W. Tyner, whose name appears on the approved rolls, as well as other 
relatives. The name John W. Tyner appears on the rolls opposite No. 
2636. It Is claimed she is entitled to have her rights considered by inter- 
marriage also. 

Numlier of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Hill, Alma (minor). 

Cherokee freedman. Files: Part III, report March 3. 1909. The 
mother of this child is Amanda Hill, who is enrolled as a Cherokee 
freedman, opposite No. 4330. Other children of the same mother are 
also enrolled. This child was not enrolled because of failure to make 
application In due time. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

H<»OES, Mexissa (minor). 

Choctaw by blood. Files : See letter of January 13, 1909, from Charles 
Knapp, district agent, Hugo, Okla., and affidavit of Agnes Stephen, trans- 
mitted therewith, on file in Indian Office. From the above it appears 
that this claimant is a full-blood Choctaw. Her mother was Sarah 
Pisuchubbi, roll No. 3471, approved roll. At the time of enrollment this 
child was with her grandfather, Solomon Jones, who thought that Sarah 
Jones would enroll her, whereas Sarah Jones thought Solomon Jones 
would take charge of the matter. In this way the child was left off the 
rolls. Her pa rents' separated some time ago and her mother is now dead. 

Number of claimants, 1. 

HowABD, Sill A. 

HowABD, Abthub (minor). 

How ABO, Sabah (minor). 

Howard Tennie (minor). 

Howard, Devoid (minor). 

HowABD, E^lroy (minor). 

HowABD, Deboyl (minor). ♦ 

HowABD, Ella May (minor). 

HowABD, Milvin (minor). 

Chlckasaws by blood. Indian Office files: I^nd 76206-1906. Dept 
I. T. D. 23380-1906. The record in this woman's case shows that she 
claims to be half-blood Chickasaw. It api)ears that her application for 
the enrollment of herself and childi-en was refused because the names 
of the applicants could not be identified on the rolls theretofore prepared 
by the tribal authorities. It is probable that tlie applicants would have 
been found entitled to enrollment if the Dawes Commission had had 
Jurisdiction to entertain their case upon Its merits. The commission was 
compelled, however, to refuse the application for the reason that the act 
of May 31. 1900, limited the Jurisdiction of that tribunal to persons duly 
enrolled or admitted as members of the tribes. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 9. 

Note. — The following cases are listed by name only to save time. The 
claimants fall within the usual classes and their cases, so far as investiga- 



S46 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

tlon has thus far disclosed, deserve further consideration for the reason 
that they have not been fully considered heretofore, or, if examined, dis- 
posed of on technical and Jurisdictional grounds. (Files for all: Part I, 
report Mar. 3. 1909.) 

Howard, Isaac W., et al. 

Cherokees by blood. Including Mrs. Howard and other members of 
his father's family and their deeeendanls. 
Approximate number, 10. 

Wesley, Ada, et al. 

Creelis by blood. Including Ada Wesley, Simon West, and a step- 
daughter of David Hill, of Okemah, Okla., and a child of Prince Taryolle, 
of Morse, Okla., the Christian names of the last two being unknown to 
the department at this time; all are minors. 

Number of claimants, 4. 

Davis, Wm. T. 

Cherokee by intermarriage. Denied enrollment, although on 1880 can- 
firmed roll. Adverse action taken because it was supposed he " married 
out " of the nation. It is claimed, however, that his second wife was one 
of the Dela wares who were adopted by treaty into the Cherokee Nation. 

Number of claimants, 1. 

BiviN, James R. 

Cherokee by intermarriage. Denied enrollment March 4, 1907. 
Number of claimants, 1. 

Habjo (Christian name unlmown). 

Creek by blood. Minor child of BanJ. Harjo. 
Number of claimants. 1. 

Howe (or Howell). Leora. 

Hair, Samuel. 

hoqshooter. willie and jessie. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Reports Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes .January 13 and 15. 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George 
Wright. Leora Howe (or Howell), bom October. 1995, child of Bertha 
Howe, a Cherokee citizen. Samuel Hair. 8 years old; son of Daniel and 
Maud Hair. Cherokees. No application of record. Willie and Jessie 
Hogshooter, children of Rufus and Rosie Hogshooter, Cherokeea No 
application of record. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Howell, Charles. 

Cherokee by blood and Cherokee freedman. Files: Part III, report 
^ March 3, 1909. The person named nbove is not an applicant for enroll- 
ment. On December 7. 190S, he made formal statement at the office of 
the district agent, at Vinita, Okla., to a representative of the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, that he had made Investigation under 
the direction of the district agent, of persons who were entitled to en- 
rollment, but who had failed to secure their rights, and that he had 
found a number of such. He then stated that he had found 5 full-blood 
Cherokees and 1 mixed-blood Cherokee, and that he had heard of 4 or 5 
others that he did not have time to go see. these children being entitled 
to enrollment as new born. They reside near Braggs. or Draggs, Okla., 
about $ miles northwest of Rose. Mr. Howell also stated that he had 
found *' some Cherokees '* close to Ketchum post office. There were 
probably 4 of these people. The reason these people failed to secure 
enrollment is found in the fact that tlieir parents were members of the 
" Snake faction," which opposed enrollment. Some of them received 
their deeds, but retunied them to the Commissioner to Five Civilized 
Tribes. The names of these children were not furnished by the Indian 
policeman, but doubtless can be obtained by inquiry at the office of the 
district agent. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 15. 

^Jttbtman Ttf ary et al 

Choctaw's by blood or Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, 
report March 3, 1909. Also records of Indian Office and Commissioner of 
the Five Civilized Tribes. Mary Huffman alleges ^jJi|^(^(5ai(^-blood 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 247 

Indian, claiming that she is the daughter of Frank and Kittle Pus- 
cactiumy, and that the former was a half-blood Choctaw, and the latter 
a half-blood Chickasaw. She says her mother's name was Kittle May- 
tnbbee. Mrs. Huffman alleges she was born in the Choctaw Nation and 
resided there eight years; that she then went to Texas, where she 
reared a family; and that she returned to the Indian Territory and has 
resided there for the past 18 or 20 years. The other claimants are re- 
lated lineally and collaterally to Mrs. HuflFman. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 12. 

• 

Htden. E\'a Marguerite (minor). 

Choctaw by blood. Indian Office flies: l^nd 21 OT.v 11)00. Department 
files; D-7205; 5-51. This claimant is the child of Frank Ilyden. whose 
name api>ears on the final roll of Choctaws by blood approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior, March 26, 1904. Her mother, Georgie Ilyden, 
was restored to the final rolls by order of the Secretary of August 9, 
1909, her name having been stricken therefrom without notice. The 
mother's enrollment was by virtue of intermarriage with the snid Frank 
Hyden. November 17, 1906, this child was adjudged entitled to enroll- 
ment, but being a " new bom " her name was placed on a separate 
schedule from those containing the names of her parents. On jurisdic- 
tional grounds, and in supposed compliance with the opinion of the Attor- 
ney General, of February 19, 1907, this schedule was dlsjipi)roved by the 
Secretary March 4, 1907, without notice or opportiiTiity for hearing. 
Query : Did the decision of the Secretarj' of November 17, 1006, adjudg- 
ing her entitled to enrollment constitute, in legal contemplation, an en- 
rollment which she could not be deprived of without due iinx'PFS of law? 
At any rate she should have the same rights as her parents. 
Number of claimants, 1. 

I8AAC, Nancy, et al. (including children). 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part III, ret>ort March 3, 1900. This woman 
was examined through an interpreter. From her statements it appears 
that she is a full-blood Choctaw: that she was born in Louisiana. She 
says she i>aid her own way to Oklahoma and received no assistance of 
any other person. It would seem that this woman has no right as against 
the Choctaw and Chiclcasaw Nations, but. in view of the fact that she is 
undoubtedly a Choctaw Indian, the Ignited States should purchase suffi- 
cient land to make allotments of 40 acres each for herself and her 
children, as was done in the case of Chickasaw freedmen. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 7. 

IvEY, Fannie. 

Jackson. Mary. 

Choctaws by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3. 1900. These 
applicants are not on any roll. Fannie Ivey claims that she was bom 
about the year is;70; that her fnther was i full-bhMid (^hoctnw and her 
mother a half-blood neirro. rnd that the latter was a daughter of a fuli- 
blood Indian woman l>y :i n<»gn>. Faiii if Ivey also clainw that her father 
was a frf»e man: th-^t she was born at Wlldb'U>e. and t])al she has lived 
in Indian Territory for the past 17 years. 

Number of claimants in tliis nicniorandiun, 2. 

Jackson. Sarah L.. post office Stratford, Okla. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Department, D-70.V): I. ().. land, 48061-1909, 
relative to above claimant, who was a party to the case of Henry Pruitt 
et al. This woman Is a sister of Whit W. Ilyden, whose name api)ears on 
the approved rolls of Choctaws by blood oi)posite No. 141 r)2. Other mem- 
bers of this family are also on the approved rolls. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Jackson. Serena (minor). 

Creek by blood. Files: See decision of Seeretary of Interior of March 
3, 1902. 60 press copy book, 225 (Ind. Ter. l)iv.). The mother of this 
child and four other children were enrolled by the Ccminiissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes June 10, 1896. This child was about five or six 
months old at the time, and her name was not mentioned in said decision. 
The department refused to enroll her ui)on the technical ground that her 
name was not included in the decision which admitted the other members 

Digitized by V^OOQIC 



248 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

of the family. In later decisions It was held that the application of a 
parent Included the unnamed minor children. See opinions of Assistant 
Attorney General. April 16, 1904, and October 10, 1905, in the cases of 
Ella E. Tyner and Pruea L. Rowland. 
Number of claimants, 1. 

Jackson, Susie. 

Jackson, Pinkie (minor). 

Creek freedmen. F\\es: 19 Opln. A. A. G., 272: also 20 Opin. A. A. G., 
443, 447. (The latter opinion relates primarily to the case of Joe Har- 
rison, but the Jackson case is also passed upon in the concluding para- 
graph.) These applicants were claimants for enrollment as Cre^ freed- 
men under Article II of the treaty between the United States and the 
Cret»k Nation proclaimed August 11, 1806 (14 Stat, 785), the mother as 
one complying originally therewith and the daughter as the descendant 
of such a i)orson. Oi)inion adverse to the mother was rendered March 
20, 1905. by the Assistant Attorney General (19 A. A. G., 272) on a mia- 
take of fiut. it being found therein that she was not born until about the 
year 1871. Later, in connection with the opinion of Joe Harrison, the 
Jackson case was reconsidered and the mistake of fact was corrected, 
with the result that it was held October 12, 1905 (20 A. A. G., 443, 447), 
in the Harrison opinion, that Susie Jackson was also entitled to enroll- 
ment under said Article II. Neither her name nor the name of her child 
Pinkie, however, appears upon the approved rolls, and the second opinion 
must have been overlooked. Or it may be that enrollment was lost, be- 
cause a later act of (Congress, approved April 26, 1906, limited the right 
to enrollment to persons on the Dunn roll or admitted by the tribal 
authorities. This new law worked an Injustice because it took away 
treaty rights. This because Susie Jackson was eligible to enrollment on 
the Dunn roll. The injustice of making the Dunn roll final as a basis of 
jurisdiction is due to the fact that the treaty admitted freedmen who 
continueii to reside in the Creek Nation after the war or returned thereto 
within one year after August 11. 1866. i. e., on or before August 11, 1867. 
Notwithstanding the right so accorded to return In one year, the Dnnn 
roll was comi)leted some time "prior to March 14. 1867" (see Gurtia 
Act, June 28. 1898), with the result that persons entitled to return up to 
August 12, 1867, were dei)rived of more than 150 days, or about 5 montha, 
of the time due them. 
' Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

James. Emkrson. 

Chocttiw freednian new born. Filt»s: Report of November 15, 1907. 
from Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. The application for the 
enrollment of this applicant appears to have been filed with the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on .March 5, 1906. Emerson James 
was bom April 1, 1905. was living March 4, 1906, and is a minor child 
of Jim and Molly James, whose names api)ear opposite Nos. 3444 and 
3451, re8i)ectively, upon the approved roll of Cboctaw freedmen. Suffi- 
cient information to show that this child was entitled to enrollment was 
not received until March 4, 1907, and on that day the commissioner tele- 
graphed the department and recommended that said child be placed upon 
the final roll of minor Choctaw freedmen. Said telegram appears to 
have not been received until March 5. 1907, too late for said child to be 
enrolled. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1. 

Jamks, Jennie (nC^e Jennie Hayes). Post office. i)robably Hamden, Okla. 

Choctaw by blo(Hl. From information received by the department 
from the district Indian agent at Hugo, Okla., it appears that this woman 
is a full-blood Choctaw; that she resides near Hamden, Okla., and that 
she failed to secure enrollment. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1. 

Jesse, Ernest, et al. (including wife and children). 

Ch(K-taw by bloml. Files: Part III, reimrt March 3, 1909. This 
claimant is a full-blood Cht>ctaw. The other members of the family are 
al.so Chootaws by blood. He was examined through an interpreter. He 
stntes he was born in Louisiana and moved to the Choctaw Nation in 
1901. This removal was in suflaclent time to permit of his id^tiflcatlon, 
and enrollment as a Mississippi Cho(rtaw, but he failedH»QQ^l^plica- 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 249 

tlon for enrollment as such. In explanation of his failure to secure en- 
rollment he says he did not mnke application for his rights 1[>ecause he 
did not understand the circumstances at the time. No one instructed 
him how to make aPDlication. and he can not read or write. His wife. 
Annie Jesse, was a full-blood Choctaw. Their children, Winston, Willie, 
George, and Philiston, are the subjects of a separate memorandum. 
These people should be furnished an allotment of 40 acres each at the 
expense of the United States, not at the expense of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Nations. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum. 6. 

JOHIYIKO, OR JOIINICO, AND WiFE. 

Ohoctaws by blood. Files: Stnteiiieiit niadv November 10, 1908, by 
Mr. J. M. Humphrey, district agent: office. Atoka. Okla. The statement 
of Mr. Humphrey is as follows : *' I represented in the winter of 1903 and 
spring of 1904 an Indian who called himself Johnlko, or Johnico, and his 
wife, who was a full-blood Indian and whose name we were never able 
to find or identify uiwn the original tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation. 
We could prove by the neighbors that she was a full-blood Choctaw 
Indian. Johniko was a medicine man of the Choctaw Indians and was a 
decided "Snake" in his belief. This may account for the fact that 
neither he nor his wife was ever enrolled and that tlieir names were 
never found on the original Choctaw rolls, and it is my belief at this 
time that neither Johniko or his wife have ever received allotments. I 
am unable to state whether or not they had any children. ♦ ♦ ♦ 
Johniko and his wife resided near Stonewall. Okla." 

Note. — ^The names of several members of Johniko's family appear upon 
the approvetl rolls, each of them having a Christian name, but it is im- 
possible to determine whether any of them are identical with the persons 
referred to by Mr. Humphrey. At any rate, the matter should not be 
left in uncertainty. Jurisdiction should \ye given the Secretary to ex- 
tend relief if it is deserved. 

Numl)er of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Johns, Dllia, et al. (Including 3 children.) 

Johns. Payton. 

Bell, Carrie, et al. (Including 4 children.) 

Choctaw^ by blood. Files: Part III, Report March 3, 1900. The prin- 
cipal applicant and her brother. Payton .lohns. claim that their father 
was a full-blood Choctaw, and that their mother was half negro and half 
Chickasaw: also that she w;i<< v free woman. They were bom in the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw country and have resided therein. The third ap- 
plicant, Carrie Bell, is the daughter of Delia Johns. These claimants are 
not on any roll. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, approximate, 10. 

Johnson, Frank. 

Jordan. Leon a Lella. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910. addressed to Hon. J. George Wright. 
Frank Johnson, age 10: apparently a full blood: son of Dave and Aide 
Johnson. Cherokees. No application of re<.'*)rd. I^ona Leila Jordan, 6 
years old; child of Anna E. and Joseph H. Jordan. No application of 
record. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Johnson, Jennie (adult), 1800 Creek roll. 

Johnson, Clarence (deceased). 1890 Creek roll. 

Johnson, Fanny, 1890 Creek roll. 

Johnson, Jennie Belle, bom after 1800 roll was made. 

Johnson, Walter, bom after 1890 roll was made. 

Johnson, John B., born after 1890 roll was made. 

Creeks by blood. Indian Office tiles. Land 2S(KH>-1000. Department 
files. D-7619. Action (1) : September 25. li^OB. Commissioner to Five 
Civilized Tribes rendered decision in their favor. February 15, 1907, 
Indian Ofllce made favorable recommendation. February 19, ip^T^^f^j^ 



250 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

tary affirmed the decision of CommissioDer to the Five Civilized Tribes. 
Action (2) : February 27, 1907. CJommlssloner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes recommended that above decision be not concurred in. March 4, 
1907, the der)artment reversed its favorable decision, doing so without 
notice or opportunity for hearing. This action was due to a mistaken 
application of opinion of Attorney General of February 19, 1907. It was 
not intended by that opinion that a rejection in 1896 was final, except 
under that act. and did not preclude adjudication under the new grant 
of authority given the department by the act of June 28, 1898. Second 
mistaken action : It was supposed that the United States court gave a 
decree against the applicants, but there Is no evidence of it. The pap^ 
purporting to be the decree of the court, all that the commission's record 
affords, is an unsigned press copy of the decree. This fully explained in 
the Ralston case and In my report of March 3, 1901). I recommend that 
the facts In this case be brought to the attention of Congress and legis- 
lation requested permitting the Secretarj- to adjudicate this case on its 
merits. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 0. 

Johnson (or Cole). Jim, et al., Muskogee, Okla. 

Chickasaw by blood. File: Part I of report of March 3, 1909. "This 
applicant is son of Thompson Cole, who died many years ago. a full-blood 
Chickasaw, and Rebecca Cole, who died In 1893, a full-blood Cherokee 
He Is. therefore, a full-blood Indian, but his name Is not on any of the 
tribal rolls, although he was bom and ralsetl in the Chickasaw Nation. 
He was an orphan at the time of preparation of the 1893 and 1896 rolls 
and there was no one to look after his enrollment on those rolls. His 
mother and Lizzie Llshtubby. Fillmore, Okla., were sisters. Applicant 
now married to white woman, by whom he has several children. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, approximately 5. 

Johnson, Si. 

Johnson, Charley. 

Choctaw freedmen. newborn. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, 
from Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes. Ai)plicHtions for the eniT>ll- 
ment of these applicants appear to have been filed with the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes on March 3, 1^)06; they were bom March 4, 
1906. and are children of Martin Johnson, whose name appears opposite 
No. 784 upon the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen, and bis wife. Mary 
Johnson, a noncitlzen of said nation. The commissioner on March 4, 1907, 
received sufficient information to show that these children were entitled 
to enrollment as minor Choctaw freedmen, and on that day telegraphed 
the department and recommended that their names be placed upon the 
roll. The telegram appears to have been received on March 5, 1907, too 
late for said children to be enrolled. 

Number of claimants on this memorandum, 2. 

Kelly, Albert. 

Choctaw by blood or Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Memorandum made 
at office district Indian agent. Antlers. Okla., November 13, 1908, Part I, 
Exhibit F. Report March 3. 1909. It Is stated that this claimant is a 
half blood, but that for some reason he failed to secure enrollment or to 
be identified as a Mississippi Choctaw, but that his wife and child have 
been enrolled. It Is also stated that the wife Is about three-fourths blood 
Choctaw and that all are from Mississippi. The people who know this 
claimant say that he talks the Choctaw language and was reared among 
them. He has the appearance of being a Choctaw. 

Number of claimants In this mepoorandum, 1. 

Kessler. Zora W., et al. (including four children). 

Cherokees by blood. Files : Part HI. Report March 3, 1909. It is 
claimed that the mother and sister of Zora W. Kessler have been enrolled 
as citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation, opiwsite Nos. 11286 and 
11287. From* the information now at hand it appears that this family 
belongs to the North Carolina branch of the tribe, and that they removed 
to the Cherokee Nation about 1881. In view of the date of their ranoval 
it Is probable that they did so in response to the act of the Cherokee 
council, api)roved about that time. Inviting North Carolina Cherokees 
to reafflliate with the tribe. It would seem that this applicant is entitled 
to enrollment, the only difficulty In her case being that she has not lived 



FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 251 

continuously In the Cherokee Nation. Her case deserves consideration 
and investigation. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Kent (given name unknown). 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Memorandum made at office district Indian 
agent Antlers. Okla., November 13, 1908, Part I, Exhibit F, report March 
3, 1909. Mr. Peter Hudson, Choctaw delegate, says that there is a child 
who«e last name Is Kent, who was reared by a family by the name of 
Tenderfer, whose address is Tuskahoma ; that this boy is between 18 and 
19 years of age; tl«at he was brought up in the nation; that he is a full 
blood Indian, but that he can not speak the Choctaw language because he 
was reared by white people. 

Note. — The difficulty in this case seems to be that his white foster 
parents took no interest in his tribal relationship. There is responsible 
authority for the statement that there were other cases where the right to 
enrollment was lost because children had been adopted by white persons. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

KiMBALE, Richard (or Richmond) (9-1834) Davis, Okla. 

Chickasaw by blood. File: Part I of report of March 3, 1909. "This 
applicant claims enrollment as an Intermarried citizen of the Chickasaw 
Nation by marriage In 1872 with Maulsey Mahardy, a recognized 
Chickasaw by blood, who died in 1888, and who was sister of Wyatte 
Mahardy, Chickasaw roll. No. 2974. The applicant, together with his 
wife (name not given) are identified upon the 1878 Chickasaw annuity 
roll, Tishomingo County, opposite No. 209. Applicant Is possessed of 
negro blood, but Is a free-bom citizen of the United States and has 
resided in the Chickasaw Nation and been recognized as a citzen thereof 
since 1867. He was denied because of his negro blood, but it is claimed 
that under the treaty of 1866. this man being a United States citizen at 
time of his marriage, he became by virtue of said marriage a Chickasaw 
citizen. This applicant Is father of Sallle Williams, whose case Is stated 
above, and also Angellne Porter and Amanda Abram, who are on final 
Chickasaw roll by blood, he being, however, only stepfather of said 
Amanda Abram. This case did npt get to the department until almost 
the 4th of March. 1907, and we do not believe had proper consideration 
owing to lack of time. He was denied March 4, 1907." 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

King, John. 

Kino. West. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes. January 15, 1910. addressed to Hon. J. George Wright. 
John King, age 15; son of Charley King and brother of James King 
mentioned in paragraph following. West King, child of James and Dollie 
King; 7 years old. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Kino, Mary. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tilbes. Application was received by the 
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes on December 20, 1902, for the en- 
rollment of Mark King, bom September 17. 1902, and living September 25, 
1902. who is a child of Jesse King, whose name appears upon the ap- 
proved roll of Choctaw citizens opposite No. 10778, and Alice King, n^ 
Nicholas, whose name appears opposite Choctaw roll No. 9837. This 
application was received too late under the act of July 1, 1902. for the 
child to have been enrolled when the application for it was received. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

King, Phillip. 

Chk'k}».«nw by blrcwl. Records in Indian Office and Conmiis-sioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes oflSce. This man's case was brought to the atten- 
tion of the department through Inspector Reede. who prepared a roll of 
persons claiming compensation for improvements on the scjiregntetl coal 
lands of the (IJhoctaw and Chickasaw Nations. His cljiim for com- 
pensation was denied because his name could not be found uiwn the 
rolls prepared by the Dawes Commission. Notwithstanding this fact. 
Inspector Beede entered a note upon the schedule ghpwlng^Jl^^^-^^ 



252 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

was a full-blood Indian. Recent investigation has disclosed that there 
is a person named Phillip King, who is enrolled as a Chickasaw freed- 
man; that he is the husband of Cornelia King, a full-blood Chickasaw, 
and father of Billy, Alice, and Arthur King, all of whom are borne on 
• the final approved rolls as three-fourths Chickasaws. Calculating from 
the quantum of blood possessed by the mother and children the father 
must have been a one-half blood Chickasaw at least. This calculation is 
confirmed by Inspector Beede*s note; hence King is entitled to 320 acres 
of land in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country instead of 40, and, in addition 
thereto, to a citizen's share of the surplus lands and moneys of the tribe. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Ladd, Joseph B. 

Cherokee by intermarriage. Department files, D 8837. Indian Office 
files : Land 42903-1909. Favorable action was taken on the application 
of this man and his family, the latter being blood Cherokees as follows: 
(1) December 1, 1902, the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
adjudged Ladd and family to be entitled to enrollment. (2) Indian 
Office recommende:l approval of said decision. (3) Secretary of Interior 
aflJrmert said decision. The schedule containing the names of the wife 
and children was approved. The case of the father was held up await- 
ing the decision of the Supreme Court in the Daniel Red Bird Inter- 
married white case. When that decision was rendered the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes ordered a hearing in I^dd*s case, 
and, upon the testimony taken, rendered a decision adverse to him, 
whlcl^ decision was affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior March 4, 
1907. No order was given by the Secretary vacating his former decision 
except such as was implied by his affirmance of the decision of the 
C/ommissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, last referred to. Reporting 
May 29, 1909, the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes says this 
• is a most meritorious case, and that the last and adverse decision must 
have been rendered through failure to note the testimony taken at the 
original hearing. The only real Issue in the case was whether his 
absence from the Cherokee Nation from 1877 to 1880 was Intended to 
be temporary or permanent. Upon the same facts as to residence the 
other members of the family are now on the approved rolls. I recom- 
mend that the facts be brought to the attention of Congress in order 
that remedial legislation may be had permitting this man's case to be 
adjudicated on the complete record therein. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Ladneb, Sylvester (minor). 

Stout, Sam (minor). 

Stout, Kate (minor). 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
These minors are the grandchildren of Sis Stout, who Is enrolled as a 
full-blood Mississippi Choctaw, opposite No, 1151 ; she says they removed 
with her to the Choctaw Nation in 1902. Their failure to be identified 
and eiiniUed was i)rubably due to the fact that they are mixed bloods, 
it being incumbent ujion such persons to show descent from one entitled 
imder article 14, treaty of 1830. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

LaFontaine, Augustine. 

MissisHippi Choctaw. Files: VnTt I. Exhibit F, report March 3. 1909. 
It a])pears from the statements of this claimant that he belonged to a 
band of Indians living near Bay St. Louis, In Hancock County, Mis&, 
and that he removed from there to the Choctaw Nation. He says that 
his parents died before he was 10 years old; that his father was one-half 
blood Indian and one-half blood French, and that his mother was a fuU- 
blood Choctaw. He also states that his wife and five children have been 
enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws. 

The failure of this claimant to secure enrollment was probably due to 
the fact that, being less than a full blood, the duty was thrown upon 
him to establish descent from one entitled to the benefits of article 14, 
treaty of September 27, 1830. To furnish such proof was Impossible for 
uneducated people, particularly those who could not afl'ord the expense 
of tracing ancestry. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. . r^r^nto 

Digitized by VjOOv ic 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 253 

Lane (formerly Fbbeland), Ck>BDELiA, et al. 

Cherokee by blood. Files : Records of Indian Office. Final action wag 
taken in this case March 4, 1907. This woman and her six children were 
then denied enrollment purely through mistake. 

Prior thereto they had been found entitled to enrollment as follows: 
(1) June 29, 1906, by CJommissioner to the Five Cfivilized Tribes; (2) Oc- 
tober 11, 1906, by Commissioner of Indian Affairs; (3) February 11. 1907, 
by Assistant Attorney General (25 A. A. G., 143) ; (4) February 15. 1907, 
by formal decision of Secretary of the Interior. The final adverse action 
of March 4, 1907, was taken without notice to the applicants and was 
the result of three mistakes. The primary reason was that the case was 
supposed to fall within the opinion of the Attorney General of February 
19, 1907 (26 Ops. Atty. Gen., 127), because the applicants were denied 
enrollment by the Dawes Commission under the act of June 10, 1896; 
but It has been definitely ascertained since, through conference with the 
Department of Justice, that it was not intended by said opinion to hold 
that such persons should be denied enrollment if the Secretary, acting 
with Jurisdiction under later acts, found them entitled. The second 
error consisted in overlooking the fact that the mother was not denied 
enrollment under the act of 1896. The third error was due to the fact 
that the only issue adjudicated under said act was the children's claim 
of right, based on the alleged Indian blood of one parent, viz, their 
father. The subsequent favorable decision of the Secretary was based 
upon the Indian blood of the mother, but the hurry and confusion in the 
Secretary's office on March 4, 1907, were too great to permit of sufficient 
examination to straighten out these features of the case. I recommend 
• that the facts be brought to the attention of Congress and that remedial 
legislation be requested. All such mistakes could be corrected and much 
of the error In the enrollment work made right by a readjudlcatlon on 
existing records of all cases acted upon after February 1, 1907, action to 
be based solely on the merits of the same. 

Note. — The statement appearing al)ove concerning " the third error ** 
Is not based upon positive official information. It was positively asserted, 
however, by the attorney for the applicants that the right of the chil- 
dren was adjudicated in 1896 solely with respect to the Indian ancestry 
of the father. This allegation is supported inferentlally by a statement 
In the decision of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes of June 
29, 1906. 

LiASLEY, ToBE (mluor). 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. Mr. 
Tiger, son of the principal chief of the Creek Nation and official inter- 
preter at Holdensvllle, says there is a full-blood Creek about 20 years 
old (in 1908) who has never been enrolled and who has received no 
land. The people with whom he lives say that his name was omitted 
from the rolls beer. use of neglect on the i)art of those who looked after 
him. He was born In the Creek Nation and has always resided there. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 3. 

LiASLEY, TUSTUNNUGGA. 

Creek by blood. The case of this claimant wae presented to the de- 
partment February 11, 1910, by the principal chief of the Creek Nation 
and his Interpreter with the Information that Lasley is a full-blood Creek 
and the nephew of one Kizzie Thompson, who is the wife of Micco Hut- 
key, alias Ben Thompson. The name of Kizzle Thompson appears In 
Its proper i)lace In this list on a separate sheet. The name of Sampson 
IjCwIs was also given in connection with the above. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Lewis (or Lamis or Gamis), Ellis. 
Going, James. 

ISTICHI, SlLLA. 

Choctaws by blood. Files: Memorandum of statement by Mr. Peter 
Hudson, 8i)ecial Indian agent, Hugo, Okla., November 12, 1908. (See Pt. 
I, Ex. F, report Mar. 3, 1909.) Mr. Hudson sjiys that he obtained his 
information concerning these persons by letter of October 27, 1908, from 
Mr. Hicks and by letter of October 23, 1908, from Dixon Tomhka. Ac- 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



254 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

cording to the information thus obtained James Cvoing and BUis Leirta 
died in the i)en!tentiary April 18, and May 15. 196B. an^ Slfla Tstichl at 
Kagletou Jannnry 17. 1903. He stiys that probabiy all of these people 
were full bUMxis. They were living on and after September 25, 1902, as 
required by the Choctaw-Chickasaw ngr^'ements. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

Lewis, Jefferson (weak minded). 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Memorandum of statement of Mr. Samuel 
Jones, Indian policeman and interpreter, at district agent*8 oflBce, Hugo, 
Okla., made November 12, 1908, with Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 
1909. Having met with an accident this man was mentally unbalanced 
and incompetent and roamed through the country. For a time he was 
cared for by Mr. Jones, referred to above. The man was also known to 
Mr. Tom Hunter and other persons of the locality. Lewis was probably 
a full-blood Choctavt. He died in February, 1903, or 1904, at the home of 
Isaac Coles, having survived the date of September 25, 1902, as required 
by law in order to be entitled to enrollment. There seems to be no doubt 
of his right to enrollment and of the right of his heirs to an allotment 
in his name. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

I.EABD, James T. (C-11; 7-2657), Hugo, Okla. 

Choctaw by marriage. File: Part I of report of March 3, 1909. This 
applicant, a white man, was married to Cora Leard (n^ McCarty), 
Choctaw roll by blood. No. 7704, on June 10, 1874, and has since that time 
been a resident and recognized as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. His 
name is on the tribal rolls of 1885 and 1896. He was denied by the com- 
mission in 1896; on appeal was admitted by United States court, and was 
denied by the Choctaw and Chickasaw citlz^ishlp court Under the 
opinion in the lioula West case his case was reconsidered by the com- 
mission ; he was enrolled by decision and his name placed on a schedule 
of intermarried citizens, but this enrollment was disapproved by the 
department March 2, 1907, under the opinion of the Attorney General in 
Loula West case, rendered in February, 1907, on the question of Juris- 
diction of the department to enroll persons after their denial, even though 
wrongful, by the citizenship court. He should be granted relief, as he 
Is stricken off the rolls on a technicality. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Lewis, Sampson (minor). 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This boy Is 
now about 18 or 19 years of age. His father died about 11 or 12 years 
ago. His mother died at his birth. Both parents were full-blopd Creeks. 
The boy was left in care of an uncle, who says he thought application 
had been made for his enrollment, but upon Inquiry he found that no 
application had been made for him and that it was then too late to file 
one. The examiner who investigated this case states: "The applicant 
from api)ea ranee is about the age of 19 years and is unquestionably a 
full-blood Creek citizen. Through the interpreter he speaks Creek flu- 
ently. Appears to be unable to speak or understand English." 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Lewis, Sina (minor). 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part IV, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
It is alleged that this child is a full-blood Indian, and that she Is or was 
an Inmate of the Murrow Indian Orphan Home, near Coalgate, Okla. 
The records of the Commlssoner to Five Civilized Tribes fail to show 
that any i)erson of this name was ever enrolled. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

LiGOINS, SEPHU8. 

LiooiNS, Roberta. 

Choctaw freedmen. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to Five Civilized Tribes. Applications for the enrollment of 
thef»e children appear to have been received at the post office in Muskogee. 
Ind. T., on December 25, 1002. and at the office of the Commission to the 
Five Civilized Tribes on December 26, 1902. There is, however, a note 
placed upon the applications for the enrollment to the effect that they 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 255 

were " received December 26, 1902," but the question as to whether or not 
they were received within the time limited by the act of July 1, 1902, 
was never determined by the commission. They are the minor children 
of Ella Butler, whose name appears opposite No. 727 upon the approved 
roll of Choctaw freedmen; they were bom July 12, 1900, and April 26, 
1902, respectively, and were living September 25, 1902. 
Number of claimants on this memorandum. 2. 

Linn, Wiluam. 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Report, Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright. 
This nnme was included in a blanket application made for the enroll- 
ment of persons found on the 1896 roll on June 30, 1902, and this appli- 
cation was dismissed for the reason that no information could be ob- 
tained showing that he was living on September 1, 1902. It appears that 
this information has subsequently been secured. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Long, Josephine Laflobk. 

Long, Jake Laflobe. 

Choctaw by blood. Indian Office files, 30029-lfM)9. Department files. 
5-61. These claimants are the children of Forbes Long, whose name 
appears on the approved roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation 
opposite No. 16005, having been placed thereon pursuant to an opinion 
rendered by the Assistant Attorney General for the Interior I>epartment, 
February 19, 1906 (21 A. A. G., 394). March 1, 1907, In supposed, but 
really in mistaken, compliance with an opinion rendered by the Attorney 
General of the United States, February 19, 1907, the name of their father 
was stricken from the approved rolls by the Secretary. Subsequently his 
name was restored to the approved rolls, following the decision of the 
Supreme Court, of November 30, 1908, in the Goldsby case (211 U. S., 
249). The case of the children differs from that of their father only 
In that being " new-bom " citizens their names were placed upon a sepa- 
rate schedule, which was disapproved when received by the Secretary, 
without prior favorable action thereon. These children, as a matter of 
right, are entitled to the sjinie cltlzeuahlp status as their father 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Love, Willis (intermarriage). 
Love, Frank (blood). 
Bbown, n^ IX)VE, Hattie (blood). 
Bbown, Lfo (blood, minor). 
Rbown, Carl (blood, minor). 
Bbown. Ix)rena (blood, minor). 
Franklin, n^e I^ve, Fannie (blood). 
Greenup, n^ I^ve, Sarah (blood). 

Love, Ruth (blood, minor). 

Chootaws by blood and intermarriage. Files: Part HI. report March 
3, 11K)9. The rights of Willis Love and his children and grnndchlldren, 
named above, are dependent upon the Indian blood of his wife. T^orena 
Love, n^e Frnzlor or Fllsh. From the statements of persons who appear 
to be reputable and well Informed It appears that the said Lorenn l^ove 
is the daughter of fnll-blootl (^hoctaws who lived nnd died in the 
Choctaw Nation, Ind. T. ; that she left an orphan and reared In faid 
nation by i>ersons who julopted her; and that she was schooled at Rlue- 
fleld Seminary, Chickasaw Nation, where only (^hukasaw and Choctaw 
children were admitted. There may be some question because of lack of 
tril)al enrollment. But the objection might be removed. i)erhai7s. by ex- 
amination of the 1874 roll, which was not delivered to the department 
until 1908, or explained by the fact that she was left an ori»l:an. The 
family has not lived continuously In the Choctaw Nation, but this is not 
ne<'CHi8arIly a fatal defect. The seeming ♦niuitles are so stronir that the 
applicants should be heard on the merits of the case, notwithstanding the 
jurlsdUtioual act of May ai, 11KX>. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 9. 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



356 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Maharda, OB Mahabdy, or Mahasda, Sam. 

Chickasaw by blood. Department files, I. T. D., 241^1899, 129-1901, 
497-1901, 1311-1901, 7562-1902, 117-1903. 389^1907. Indian Otflce flies. 
I^nd, 91609-1906. This claimant is a minor, or at most a young man. 
His father, Wyatt Mahardy. is a half-blood Chickasaw whose name ap- 
pears on the final roll of Chickasaws by blood, approved by the Secretary 
of the Interior, and upon the rolls prepared by the tribal authorities in 
1896 and 1893. Sam's mother was a Seminole freedwoman, and on that 
account the boy was enrolled as a Seminole freedman. It Is understood, 
however, that he holds land in the Chickasaw Nation on which are valu- 
able improvements; that he has resided in s.ald nation all his life; and 
that he would sufl'er serious financial injury If compelled to abandon his 
home and to take an allotment nmong the Semlnoles. with whom he has 
never lived. After his enrollment as a freedman the department took up 
and reconsidered his case, but finally refused to enroll him as a Chicka- 
saw citizen by blood. Final adverse action was taken, not upon the merits 
of the case but upon jurisdictional pounds, inasmuch as his name could 
not be identified upon the Chickasaw tribal rolls. As his father is un- 
questionably a citizen by blood and his mother a. free woman, Sam 1b 
entitled to enrollment as a Chickasaw by blood. The last action in his 
case was taken March 4, 1907 (press copy book 328, p. 122, Ind. Ter. Div.). 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

ATarrr \Chs Tanf 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part II, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. It 
Is said this woman had resided in Indian Territory for 15 years prior to 
1908; that she is a full sister of Crawford Marlow. enrolled on final rolls 
opposite No. 15685, and an aunt of Reuben Marlow, who is also enrolled 
on the final rolls of the Choctaw Nation. 

Note. — Probably a " memorandum " case. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Mabtin, Jennie, and Lane, Pearley. 
Mike, Annie. 

McCoy. Jack. 

Cherokees by bloml. Files: Reports Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January- 13 and 15, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George 
Wright. Jennie Martin and Pearley Lane, minor children of Ada Rowe, 
a Cherokee freedman. Annie Mike, daughter of Robin Mike, Cherokee. 
No application of record. Jack McCoy, 6 years old; son of Alex McCoy, 
jr., Cherokee. No application of record. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 4. 

Mason, Emily, post office. Muskogee, box 53A. 

Creek by blood. Files: Letter of April 12, 1909, on file in Indian 
Office. This woman claims tc» be a full-blood Creek. She states in effect 
that her sister has received the rights incident to enrollment. Claimant 
seems very Ignorant and appears to be bewildered as to what the pro- 
ceedings which occurred In comiection with her enrollment were. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Mason, Sylvester (minor). 

Chickasaw freedman. fruliau Office and office of Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes. TJiis child is the son of Andy Mason, who is re- 
ported to be dement €h1. The father was enrolled on the final rolls of 
Chickasaw fretnlnjeu, a|)pnived by the Secretary, together with two of 
his minor childreii. A third child, the said Sylvester failed to secure 
enrollment, not becau'^e 4>f Im-k of right, but because his dementod father 
did not succeed in havinj; apjuication m^de for him within the 90-day 
limit provided for in siHtion o4 of the act of July 1, 1902. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

May'field, Ruth Frances (minor). 

Choroko? by Moml, Indiui Office files: I^nd 24439-1909. This child 
was an applicant for enrollment as a "new-born" Cherokee. Her father 
was a Cherokee by blocnl. There seems to be no question as to her right 
to enri^llnient excei)t that nn jiroof was submitted prU>r to Mai-ch 4, 
1907, of the mnrriajie of her ;. Ji**'"^^- This proof was necessary because 
it was provided by the act of April 26, 1906, that illegitimate children 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 257 

should follow the status of the mother. The enrollnieut of the child was 
not properly attended to because her father was an inmate of a pcail- 
tentlary. The father, J. M. Mayfield, has since filed an affidavit stating 
he was married under the assumed name of W. M. Mayes to Miss Nellie 
Crawford (the child's mother), May 22, 1900. He has also furnished 
certified copy of marriage license. This case deserves investigation. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

McDaniel, Houston. 

Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Part I, Exhibit F. report March 3, 1909. 
This claimant says he is i\ full-blood Choctaw ; that he removed from 
Louisiana to the Indian Territory about 1903; that he has not been 
enrolled, and that his uncle, Amos Blueye, has been identified and 
enrolled. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Note. — The name of Amos Blueye appears on the approved, rolls. 

McCabty, John (one-half blood Choctaw). 

McCabty, Nora (thirteen thirty-seconds blood Choctaw). 

McCarty, Lillie (one-half blood Choctaw). 

McCabty, Millie (one-half blood Choctaw). 

McCabty, Leo (one-half blood Choctaw). 

McCabty, Mary (five-sixteenths blood (Choctaw). 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
The head of this family states that he is an interpreter. He claims one- 
half Choctaw, and that his Indian blood was obtained from his mother, a 
full-blood Choctaw. He says that he tried to establish his claim, but 
that he did not have the means with which to do anytliing. This family 
undoubtedly consists of Choctaw Indians; being mixed bloods, it was in- 
cumbent uix)n them to establish their right to prove their descent from 
an ancestor residing in Mississippi in 1830. While it appears that they 
are members of the Yearbey family, which went from the old Choctaw 
Nation in Mississippi to the extreme southern portion of the State and 
located near Bay St. Louis, in Hancock C3ounty, it must be that they were 
unable to furnish satisfactory proof of their family history. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 6. . 

McGiBT, Lena (minor). 

McGiKT, Beitie. 

Creeks by blood. Files: Indian Olfice records, land [wpuiation, 4848- 
1910, and decision of Commissioner to the Five Civllizeil Tribes of 
February 27, 1907, copy therewith. Lena McGirt is alleged to be a full 
blood Cieek. She is the child of Mangy McGirt, who is enrolled opposite 
No. 5547 as a full blootl Creek, and Bettie McGlrt. She was entitled to 
enrollment under the act of April 2t>, 1906. Bettie McGirt, according to 
the decision of the Commissioner to the Five Civillzeil Tribes of Febru- ^ 
ary 27, 1907, Is a citizen by blood of the Creek Nation, but her name 
does not appear ujmn the rolls approved by the Secretary*. Application 
was made in due time for the child's enrollment, but adverse decision 
was rendered because the mother did not furnish proof of marriage. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum. 2. 

McKiNNEY, Benj. Fbanklin (minor). 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part II, Exhibit F, report of March 3, 1909. 
The parents of this child are enrolled Choctaws by blood. The father, 
John McKlnney. who Is or was official Interpreter at the office of the 
district Indian agent at Pauls Valley, Okla., Is enrolled as a full-blood 
Choctaw. Failure to secure enrollment due to inability to obtain affidavit 
of attending physician, he being absent when applications were made. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

McKlNNEY, GiLBEBT. ^ 

Choctaw freedman. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Application was received on 
March 10, 1903, for the enrollment of this applicant as a Choctaw freed- 
man. He was bom September 2, 1900, and was living September 25, 1902, 

69282—13 17 , 

Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



258 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

aud Is the child of Boliug McKinney, whose name appears opposite No. 
553(J u|H)n the approved roll of Choctaw freedmen. The enrollment of 
Bolhiu McKiniiey, with his other four minor children, was approved by 
the department Mjirch 4, 1907, but the applicant Gilbert McKinney, 
whose case was embi-aced in that of his father and sisters, was not 
enrolled. The commissioner advised the department in reference to this 
case in his letter of June 28. 1907, hereinabove referred to. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

MoMiLLAN, Henry (three-fourths Choctaw). 

Thompson (or Hkxry). Leon a (three-fourths Choctaw). 

Hickman, Gaston (minor; about seven-eighths Choctaw). 

Mississippi Choctaws or Choctaws by blood. Files: Part II, Exhibit 
F, report March 3. 1909. These people are undoubtedly Choctaws. They 
speak the Choctaw language and but little English. Henry states that his 
mother and a brother, named Sidney Amos, are probably on the approved 
rolls. 

Note. — The name Sidney Amos does appear on the approved rolls. It 
is possible that the father of the Hickman boy has been enrolled. Failure 
to secure enrollment was probably due to negligence or inability to prose- 
cute their case. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

McMillan, W. H.. et al. 

Choctaws by blood. Files: Memorandum record in Part IV, Exhibit 
F, rejmrt MjTch 'S, IDOl). (See also records of Commissiouer to the Five 
Clvilissed Tribes.) It is claimed that this person is one-half blood Choc- 
taw, aud that bis father was a sheriff under the tribal government of the 
Choctaws. The records of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
show that one Walhice McMillan was an applicant for identification 
as a Mississippi Choctaw, together with his two minor children; that he 
claimed to be a full-blood Choctaw Indian; that the field notes of the 
Dawes Commission showed that he appeared to be a mixed blood with 
the Choctaw strain predominating, and that he was therefore, with his 
two minor children, refusedf Identification as full-blood illsslsslppl 
Choctaw. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

Meyers. Ida. 

Meyers, Lula (minor). 

Metbrs, Alexander (minor). 

Meyers, Fred (minor). 

MiKEY, Joe (brother of Ida Meyers). 

Chlckasaws by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. The 
principal applicant named above claims to be one-half blood Indian. 
She and her children have been enrolled as freedmen, b!it she refused to 
take land as such. She says her father was a full-blood Indian named 
Thomas Mikey, or Mica, or Chl-nl-ca ; that she was 36 years old In 1908 ; 
that she was born and brought up In the Chickasaw Nation; that the 
^103 payment was drawn in her name; and that she si>eaks the Chicka- 
saw lMnpu:i;i(\ She has tlie niipejinince of being an Indian, aud if she 
has any iie^ro blood it i« not discernible. The other :ii>pHcauts, except 
Joe Mlkey, are her children. He is her brother. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 0. 

Miller, Charlottk. 

Choctaw or Cherokee freedman. Files: Part III. reiM>rt March 3, 
1909. This woman .states that her father was a Cherokee freedman; that 
her mother was a Choctaw freedman: that both parents had Indian 
blood, but that both were slaves. She also claims that she was reared 
in San Hois County. Clioctaw Nation, and that she has never lived out 
of the Indian Territory. While it is apparent this woman is not en- 
titled to enrojhnent as a citizen by blood, it would seem, if her state- 
ments are true, that she is entitled at least to enrollment as a Choctaw 
freedman. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIV£ CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 269 

Mn.T.EB, Mb8. G. B. (sister of). 

Cherokee by blood. Indian Office flies: Land 24256-1909; Cherokee 
053. This woman's name was not reported to the department. All that 
was shown was that she was a sister of Mrs. G. B. Miller, and it was 
claimed that she was a recognized citizen by blood. It is claimed that 
her failure to secure enrollment was due to the fact that she was insane. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Mills, Katis. 

Cl^octaw or Chickasaw by blood. Piles: Part III, report March 8, 
1909. This woman claims that her father was a full-blood Chickasaw 
and that her mother was a full-blood Choctaw. She was 26 years old in 
1908. She has the appearance of being an Indian by blood. She was 
bom at Wynnewood and has lived in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country 
all her life. 

Note. — If the allegations of this woman are correct she was bom after 
the emancipation of the Choctaw-Chickasaw slaves, and as her mother 
was a free woman and her father an Indian by blood It would seem that, 
under the constitution and laws of the Choctaw Nation, she would be 
entitled to enrollment. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

. MoNBOE, Willis. 

lifONBOE, EJSTELLA (miuor). 

Chiekasaws by blood. Files: Part L Exhibit F. reinnt March 3, 1909. 
(Statement of Kittie Monroe, wife of Willis Monroe, made at office of 
district Indian agent, Atoka, Okla., November 10, 1908.) It is claimed 
that Willis Monroe is a half-blood Chickasaw, and that he is the son of 
Kli-nah-ta, a full-blood Chickasaw, by a woman named Amelia Clark, 
to whom he was never married. The names of Willis Monroe and 
Amelia Clark appear on the rolls of Chickasaw freedmen, their ages 
being 34 and 58 in 4902. As Willis Monroe was bom subsequent to the 
emancipation of the Choctaw and Chickasaw slaves, It follows that if 
the allegations are true he is the son of a full-blood Chickasaw by a 
free woman, and hence entitled to enrollment as a Chickasaw by blood. 
It also follows that Estella Monroe, who was born in 1904, being the 
daughter of Willis Monroe, would be eniitled to enrollment as a new 
bom If her father's name had been transferred to the blood rolls. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Moore, Joseph C, et al. 

Chlckasaws by blood. Indian O^ce files: Land 21353-1907; depart- 
ment, Indian Territory Division, 7850-1907; 328, pages 2-94. Several 
members of this family were admitted to enrollment by the Dawes Com- 
mission in 1896; and upon appeal to the United States court the deci- 
sion was affirmed. Having double judgments in her favor, they were 
not required to go to the citizenship court. (See report, Mar. 4, 1907, 
by Attorney General Bonaparte to the President.) Under mistaken im- 
pression the case was transferred to that court and there adversely 
acted upon. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 5. 

MoBeAN, John. 

Morgan, Cynthia. 

Cherokee freedmen. Indian Office files: I^nd, 62228-1908; Cherokee, 
053. John Morgan and his wife Cynthia were the slaves of John Ross, 
a Cherokee chief, who died during the Civil War, at Washington or Phil- 
adelphia, while absent from his tribe on official business wi :h the United 
States. The Morgans were his body servants and were taken with him 
while he was on this mission. Their absence from the Cherokee Nation 
was not due In any sense to an Intention lo abandon the Cherokee Tribe 
or to take on the citizenship of another people. They returned to the 
Cherokee Nation shortly af.er the war, and probably as early as May, 
1867 — as soon as they could secure transportation — and have since re- 
sided continuously therein. Their names appear on the Wallace and 
Kem-Cllfton rolls. As they were constructively residents of ihe Cherokee 



Digitized by V^OOQ IC 



260 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Nation all the time the requirements imposed by article 9 of the treaty 
of 1866 upon certain freedmen to return to the Cherokee Nation within 
six months really had no application to them. This case is precisely the 
same in principle as that of Charles Foreman, who also accompanied 
Chief John Ross and who was enrolled by the Secretary. The only ap- 
parent obstacle to their enrollment is section 3 of the act of April 28, 
1906 (34 Stat, 137), which, after 40 years, by legislative construction 
of article 9 of the treaty of 1866, limited enrollment to Cherokee freed- 
men "who were actual personal bona fide residents of thQ Cherokee 
Nation August 11, 1866, or who actually returned and established such 
residence in the Cherokee Nation on or before February 11. 1867." 
Number of claimants in this memorandum. 2. 

Mttlly, Chimoker. 

MuLLY, Mitch ELY. 

MuLLY, Barney. 

MuLLY, Simon. 

Creeks by blood. Files: Report of November 15. 1907, from Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Case No. 1-3172. April 26, 1907, Clii- 
moker MuUy appeared before the Commissioner to the Five Civilized 
Tribes and gave testimony in connection with the right to enrollment as 
citizens by blood of the Creek Nation of herself and children, Mitchely, 
Barney, and Simon Mully, all full-blood Creek Indians. It developei 
thnt Chimoker Mully was Identified upon the 1895 Creek pay roll, 
Ketchapataka Town, as Chimhoka, but that her enrollment upon said 
roll had previously been accepted, through error, as that of one Wattey 
Yahola. whose name apiiears upon the approved roll of Creek Indians 
opposite No. 2416. It was also found that her children, above named, 
who are also identified on said roll were listed for enrollment by the 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes on May 23, 1901, as Mitchell, 
Barney, and Simon Wlker, and that on February 20, 1907, the commis- 
sioner dismissed the application for their enrollment, no information 
having been received to show whether or not they were living and en- 
titled to enrollment on April 1, 1899. The names of these persons also 
appeared upon the 1890 authenticated roll of citizens by blood of the 
Creek Nation, on page 133, Ketchapataka Town, as Chimarhokee. Majaila, 
Parma, and Sarma. The evidence shows that these people have lived con- 
tinuously all of their lives in the Cherokee Nation (among a band of 
Creek Indians who settled In the Cherokee Nation about the time of the 
outbreak of the Civil War), and that they have never been enrolled or 
recognized as citizens of any tribe of Indians other than the Creek. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

MuLLiE, Jennie, or Chim-ho-ker. 
MuLLiE, John, Sr. 
MuLLiE. John, Jr. 

MuLLiE, Katie. 

Braggs. Okla. Creeks by blood. Files: letter of January 22. 1910, 
Acting Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, to Hon. J. George 
Wright. The names of these claimants were on the list mentioned in 
the above letter from Acting Commissioner Ryan, who stated that the 
persons referred to therein were Indians who are probably entitled to 
enrollment, and who were not enrolled by reason of failure to make 
application. With his letter he inclosed testimony taken in the field 
through an Interpreter relating to each case. This family Is unquestion- 
ably of Creek blood. Katie, named above. Is the daughter of Fannie 
Mullie, iieo Bauty, whose name appears on the final approved rolls as a 
seven-eighths blood Cherokee. She speaks both Cherokee and Creek. 
The father of Katie is John Mullie, sr., who is a Creek by blood. The 
other claimants are the children of Jennie Mullie, Katie is her grand- 
child. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVB CIVILIZBD TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 261 

NiCKEY, Maggie (now John). 
NiOKEY, Billy. 
NiCKET, Bettie Russel. 

NiOKET, MOLLIE MaSS. 

NiCKEY, Sam. 

Mississippi Cboctaws. Files: Report of November 1.5. 1907, from Ck>m- 
mlssioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. These applicants were embraced 
In the Mississippi Choctaw application of Nancy Nickey, made at Meridian, 
Miss., April 25, 1901, for the identification of herself and said children, 
and also for her child, Lizzie Nickey. who died In the year 1901, as 
Mississippi Cboctaws. Said Nancy Nlckev was identified as a full-blood 
Mls8ls8iw>l Choctaw ALny 17, 1904. September 13, 1904, the Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes denied the Identificntion as full-blood 
Mississippi Cboctaws of the above-named children, and said decision 
was approved by the department December 13, 1904 (I. T. D. 12338- 
1904). January 12, 1907 (I. T. D. 82-1907), the department ordered a 
rehenrlng In the matter of the application of said Maggie Nickey, and 
on March 4, 1907, Commissioner Blxby wired the department as follows: 

** Referring to departmental letter of January twelfth, nineteen seven 
(I. T. D. elghty-two-niueteen seven), ordering rehearing In application 
of Maggie Nickey, now Maggie John, for Identification as Mississippi 
Choctaw, suflScient evidence has been received by me to-day to identify 
this applicant as full-blood Mississippi Choctaw, and such action has 
accordingly been taken on this date by me. Sufllclent evidence is also 
on file with this oflice showing bona fide settlement within Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country. Recommend that her name be placed on schedule 
of identified Mississippi Cboctaws, and also on final roll of Mississippi 
Cboctaws and approved by you to-day. Maggie Nickey Is twenty years 
old. removed to Choctaw-Chickasaw country in February, nineteen hun- 
dred three, and submitted proof of settlement on February fifth, nineteen 
seven. Her name api)ear8 on Mississippi Choctaw card number nine 
hundred seventeen.'* 

March 13, 1907 (I. T. D., <S21O-1907), the department advised the com- 
missioner that as the telegram was not received until March 5, 1907, " It 
is not considered that the department has now the authority to place 
said Maggie Nickey, or Maggie John, uiwn the roll of Mississippi Choc- 
taws." On March 4. 1907. the commissioner rendered his decision, refus- 
ing the application of Lizzie Nickey for identification, she having died too 
soon to be entitled to such identification, and grante<l the application for 
the identification of said Maggie, Billy. Sam, Bettie Russell, and Mollie 
Mass Nickey as full-blood Mississippi Cboctaws. The commissioner ad- 
vised the department of this action on March 6, 1907, and stated that — 

" Considering, however, the fact that but a few hours remained before 
the closing of the rolls of citizenship, no action was taken as to the 
notification of said parties as to their identification for the reason that 
the said Billy and Sam Nickey are residents of Paulding. Miss., and 
Bettie Russell Nickey, of Mosell. Miss., and Mollie Mass Nickey, of 
Sylvarena, Miss., and it would have been Impossible for them to have 
removed to and settled within the Choctaw-Chlckasiiw country and sub- 
mitted proof thereof, as required by section 41 of the act of Congress 
approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641), within which time for their enroll- 
ment to have been approved by you on March 4, 1907.** 

March 16, 1907 (I. T. D., 8510-1907). the department, in reply to the 
comml8Bloner*s letter, stated that it had no authority to further act In 
the case. I believe that authority should be granted for the placing of 
the name of Maggie Nickey upon the final roll of Mississippi Cboctaws, 
and that upon her compliance with the law, a final allotment of land be 
given her. As to the other applicants first name<l, I believe that a rea- 
sonable time, say, six months, should be given them within which to 
establish a bona' fide residence In the Choctaw-Chickasaw country, and 
that upon the proof of such settlement they be enrolled as Mississippi 
Cboctaws, and upon their compliance with the law as related to Mis- 
sissippi Cboctaws, they be given final allotments of land in the Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



262 - FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Oakball, 



Cherokee by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to Five CItI- 
Hzed Tribes. January 13. 1910, addressed to the Hon. J. George Wiight 

Oakball, child of White and Susan Oakball, Cherokees. No 

application of record. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

OifSON, OR Oldson (n^e Bellvell, Bose). 

Bellykll, Zena. * 

Bellvell, Mollte. 

Choctaws by blood. Files: Part II, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
The statements which follow are based upon the allegations of Rose 
Olson made at the offict of district Indian agent, Tishomingo, November 
10, 1908. Mrs. Olson is a quarter-blood Choctaw and the daughter of 
David and Georgia Green Bellvell. She has two sisters, whose names 
appear above. Green was her mother's maiden name. It Is through her 
she claims Choctaw blood. Mrs. Olson says she made no application for 
enrollment, because she had no one to look after It for her until she 
married. She wns born in the Choctaw Nation near Atoka, and resided 
there and in other place?" In the Indian Territory. Her mother died 
when she was 5 years old. and a llttlp later she was taken to Texas by 
her father, a traveling man. He married again, and Rose, when 15 or 16 
years old. left home because of the unklndness of her stepmother. The 
principal claimant states that when she was a child the family lived for 
a month with a family of Choctaws named Pryor Allen. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

Owens, Martha Ann. 

Owens. Henry. 

Choctaw freedmen. Files: Report of November 15, 1907. from Com- 
missioner to Five Civilized Tribes. Applications were received December 
29, 1902, by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for the enroll- 
ment of Martha Ann Owens, bom November 18, 1899, and Henry Ow^ia, 
bom January 20, 1902, and who were living September 25. 1902. The 
applicants are the minor children of Tom and Charlotte Owens, whose 
names appear opposite Nos. 2779 and 2780, respectively, upon the approved 
roll of Choctaw freedmen. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Owens. Mollie, et al. (including children and grandchildren). 

Chickasaw freedmen. Files: Record on file in Indian Office. (See 
also statement of claimant made Nov. 27, 1908, at office of district Indian 
agent, Muskogee, Okla.; see Part III, Exhibit F, report Mar. 3, 1909.) 
This woman was undoubtedly a Chickasaw freedman. Her brother, Sam 
Williams, is enrolled as such. She was born near Doaksvllle. In the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw countrj-, and has resided therein many years, except 
portions of the time in Texas. She was known to the district agent as 
a person of good character and unusually industrious. Valuable lands 
which she has held and improved for years, containing her home, have 
been allotted to others. Her application was denied, but it Is believed 
that her cause is of such unusual merit as to deserve reconsideration. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 14. 

Paddy, Susie (minor). 

Seminole by blood. Files: Part III. Exhibit F, report March 3. 1909. 
It appears that this child was bom about March 8. 1904: that she is a 
full-blood Seminole: that her father, who is a full43lood Seminole, failed 
to enroll her because he was in the penitentiary serving a three-year 
term and could not attend to the matter. It is also claimed that the 
tribal authorities are allowing this child the " per capita " payment 
not^'ithstandlng her name does not appear on the approved rolls. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Palmer, Dickie (minor). 

LuCAB, John, et al. (adult). 

Creeks by blood. Plrst : Information obtained at office of district Indian 
agent, Holdenville. Okla., November 26. 1908. (See Part III, Exhibit F, 
reiKirt of Mar. 3, 1909.) Dickie Palmer was bom August 15, 1905, and 
was entitled to enrollment under the act of April 26, 1906. His father, 
mother, and sister are on the final rolls as Creek Indians. He failei to 



FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 263 

secure enrollment because of the negligence of bis parents. John Lucar 
claims quarter-blood Creek; bis father failed to enroll him. He has 
three brothers who are not enrolled. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 5. 

Patton. Eva. 

Cherolcee by blood. Piles: Report Acting Commissioner to Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright. 
Eva Pntton, age 16 years, apparently a full blood, son of Dave and Akle 
Johnson. Cherokees. No application of record. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Pebby, James 

Pebby, Stephen. 

Creeks by blood. The names of these applicants, who are brothers, 
were brought to the attention of the department February 11, 1910, by 
the principal chief of the Creek Nation and his interpreter. It Is said 
that the claimants have the appearance of being full-blood Creek In- 
dians: that they failed to secure enrollment; but that they are entitled 
to be enrolled. 

Number of claimants. 2. 

Pebby, Jincy Jane. 
Pebby. Bessie (minor). 
Pebby, Ellen (minor). 
Pebby, Loxhsa (minor). 

Pebby, Rtchabd (minor). 

Chlckasaws by blood and Choctaw freedmen. Files: The record In this 
case on file In office of Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes; see also 
statements of Turner Burris and Jincy Jane Perry made November 27, 
1908, at office of district Indian agent. MoAlester. Okla.. recorded in 
Part III. Exhibit P, report March 3, 1909. This woman states that she 
and her two oldest children are enrolled as Choctaw freedmen, but that 
her two youngest children failed to secure enrollment been use the appli- 
cation for their enrollment was not mailed in time. Jincy .Tane Perry 
alflft clninjs to be entitled to enrollment as a citizen hy blood, being the 
daughter of Abble Brown. n(^e Clay, who was a half sister of Turner 
Burris, said persons being the children of Louisa Brown, and through 
her the erj^ndchildren of Teciimseh Brown, alleged to have been a full- 
blood Chickasaw. As this woman clninis through the same maternal 
ancestors as does Turner BurrJs. her case should be considered In con- 
nection with the separate memorandum relating to his case. The right 
of the two minor children to be enrolled as Choctaw freedmen should 
not be overlooked. On the other hand, their right to such enrollment 
should not be allowed to obscure their greater right, if such they have, 
to enrollment as Chicakasaws by blood. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 5. 

Phillips, Ma by Fbances. 
Smythe, Maby O. 
Phillips, Oscab Strange. 
Phillips, John Benjamin. 
Phillips, Zfla Neal. 
Phillips, Abthub, 
Phillips, Jesse Fi^orence.. 
Phillips, P^abnest. 
Phillips, Pbedebick. 

Smith, Macine. 

Cherokees by blood. File: Part I. Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
It is claimed that Mrs. Phillips, who is the ancestor of all the others 
named above. Is the daughter of William Sansome, :ind that the latter 
was the son of a half-blood Cherokee. Further, that failure to secure 
enrollment was due to ignorance and to the fnct that they intrusted their 
case to attorneys, who failed to care for it properly. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 10. V^OOQIC 



264 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

PiTCHLYNN, Earl R. 

Choctaw and Chickasaw by blood. Files: See statement of claimant 
made lo J. W. Howell, at Tishomingo, Okla., November 19, 1909, Ex- 
hibit F. Part II, report of March 3, 1909. This man claims to be pert 
Choctaw and part Chickasaw. He has the appearance of being of mixed 
white and Indian blood. He is a member of the historic Pitchlynn family, 
long prominent in Choctaw affairs. Like other members of the family 
now on the approved rolls, he has been absent from the nation at 
various times. He has lived therein continuously for several years 
past. His failure to secure enrollment was probably due to delay in 
making application. He Is addicted to strong drink. It can not be 
doubted that he is an Indian. 

Number of claimants on this memorandum, 1. 

Polk, Siah (minor). 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. It is said 
that this child is the offspring of full-blood Creek parents. It was bom 
December 23, 1809, and hen»*e was entitled to enrollment as a *' new bom." 
It is claimed that application for its enrollment was made to Alex Poscfy-. 
a Creek officer, but that the application was never heard from. The 
child can not speak English. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

Polk, Willis. 

Choctaw and Chickasaw by blood. Files: Report Acting Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. T. 
George Wright. The name of this child was furnished by the Acting 
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, with the names of several other 
children whi» are thought to be entitled to enrollment. It is shown 
that this child is the son of Cephus Kepo, a Chickasaw, and ^L'\ry Polk, 
a Choctaw. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Raiforu, Washin(;ton (minor). 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. The father of 
this child is a quarter-blood Creek, whose name appears upon the final 
approved rolls of citizens by blood of the Creek Nation. The child's 
mother is a full-blood Creek, but her name appears upon the final rolls 
of the Seminole Nation. The boy was bom in 1905, and hence was 
entitled to enrollment under the act of April 26, 1906. Other children 
of the s:ime parents have been enrolled. This child lived with an aunt, 
who neglected to enroll him. In this connection the father states that 
he told the wonian to bring the boy down to be enrolled, but that she got 
contrary about it and said there was no use in having him enrolled. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Reed, Wabren. 

Creek fr(H?dman. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This child 
was born prior to March 4, 1906, and was living on said date. His 
mother, Kettie Reed, has been enrolled as a Creek freedman. His failure 
to secure enrollment is due simply to the fact that no application was 
^ade for him. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

RiOHTKR, n^ Cook. IsABFi.r.F.. 

RicuTKR, Chablks H. (minor). 

Cherokees by blood. Indian Office files: Land 18925-1909. These 
claimants are mother and sou. Their Cherokee blood is unquestioned. 
Mrs. Richter, who was born in the Cherokee Nation, and who resided 
therein continuously until 16 years old, is the daughter of Susan Cook 
(or Sanders), whose name appears on the approved Cherokee blood roll 
opposite No. 9455 as a three-fourths blood Cherokee. The names of Isa- 
bel le and her mother both appear on the 1880 confirmed tribal roll, as 
well as one or more other rolls. The only questions in the case are: 
(1) Did Isabelle Richter abandon her citizenship, and (2) was she liv- 
ing September 1, 1902. Careful examination of the record shows that 
the evidence therein is not sufficient to establish abandonment, the origi- 
nal cause of her abs^Miee being that she was sent away to scbt^)l. The 
evidence sbows she was living as late as July, 1902. Whether later is 



Digitized by V^OOQIC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 265 

not known to the department at this date. The rights of her minor son 
may be stronger than her own. In view of Commissioner Leupp*s recom- 
mendation of August 15, 1907, and the opinion of the Attorney General, 
referred to therein, rendered February 26, 1907, in the John W. Gleason 
case, the case of Isabelle Richter and son desei*ves careful review. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 2. 

Ritchie, Kinoab and Bunch. 

Cberokees by blood. Files: Reiwrt Acting Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright. 
Kingar and Bunch Ritchie, minors, children of Mary E. Ritchie, a Chero- 
kee. No application of record. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2. 

Roads, Andrew O. 

Roads, Emmett L. 

Choctaws by blood. Files: Part L Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
These young men claim as Choctaws by blood, being nephews of B. B. 
Askew, whose name appears on the final approved Choctaw rolls opposite 
No. 14215, and cousins of Rual Askew, roll No. 14222. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 2. 

RoGEBS, Susie (minor orphan). 

Cherokee by blood. Indian Office files: Land 87225-1908. It apiiears 
ttat this claimant failed to secure enrollment because no one made 
application to the Commissioner' to the Five Civilized Tribes for that pur- 
pose. She resided for some time at the Cherokee Orphan Asylum. It 
is claimed that she is the daughter of C. P. Rogers, deceased, and that 
her motlier was the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. John Mcintosh, full-blood 
Cberokees, and that the former Is enrolled as No. 18345 on the approved 
Cherokee roll. This case was brought to the attention of the department 
by Hon. James S. Davenport and others. 
Number of claimants, 1. 

Ross, , post office, Tahlequah, Okla. 

Cherokee freedman. Files: Indian Office, letter of Patsie White of 
April 13, 1909. From the letter of Patsie White, referred to above, It 

appears that her son, Ross, was omitted from the freedman rolls 

because of application being made too late. Patsie White states that 
this child is her son by a former husband named Jackson Ross. 

Note. — The name Jackson Ross appears on the final rolls of Cherokee 
freedmen. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1. 

Russell, Lorenzo. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. It is 
claimed that the father of this applicant is half-blood Choctaw, duly en- 
rolled as an Indian by blood; that his mother is a negro; that he is 30 
years old and was born free. It is als4j stated that he is nuw enrolled as 
a Choctaw freedman and that he did not ask to he enrol UhI as a citizen 
by blood because he learned that others similarly sItuattKl were being 
denied by the Dawes Commission. This i>re>oius another case of a iKjrson 
of mixed negro and Indian blood, born .ift»T the emancipation of the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw slaves, of parents onn ..i' whom was a citizen 
by blood' of the* Choctaw Nation. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Sanders. Henry Kenneth (minor). 

Cherokee by blood. Indian Office files: Land .3r,26t-lt)')S. Department 
6-61, miscellaneous. This boy was bom October 1, 1902. He is the son 
of William B. Sanders, Cherokee by blood, enrolled opposite No. 11977. 
There are six members of this family now enrolled, the father as a 
quarter-blood Cherokee* the mother a half blood. The only objection to 
this boy seems to be that application was not received for him in due 
time. It is claimed that affidavits of birth were mailed to the Dawes 
Commission, but were not received in time prescribed by law. This case 
was the subject of correspondence with Hon. James S. Davenport. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



266 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Savage, Virgiwia, et al., including — 

Savage, James L. 

Savage, David L. 

Savage, Sab ah Virginia. 

Savage, Melvin F. 

Savage, Earl V. 

Savage, Ernest V. 

Savage, Omer. 

Savage, Sylvia O. 

Savage, Mable F. 

Chickasaws by blood. Indian Office files: Land, 5370-1908. These 
persons are undoubtedly Chickasaws by blood, being members of a well- 
known Chickasaw family, a number of whose members have bcsen 
enrolled on the approved rolls. It is claimed and is probably true that 
Mrs. Savage is a cousin of Hon. Charles Carter, who Is an enrolled 
Chickasaw by bltx^. She was born in the Choctaw-Chickasaw conntry 
and claims that her home was therein until after she was married. 
The governor of the Chickasaw Nation recommends favorable considera- 
tion of the petition. The only question of importance so far as Mrs. 
Savage is concerned is whether she lost her Indian right by removal to 
Colorado. There was no law of expatriation in the Chickasaw Nation, 
and in view of tlie enrollment of other absentees the case should be given 
reconsideration. Tho children may have less right than the mother, as 
there is to be considered in connection with some of them the effect of 
birth outside of the nation to an alien father. 
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 10. 

choctaws by blood. 

(See Indian Office flies.) 

Scarborough, Jerry. 

One-fourth blmHl Choctaw. Residence, Pontotoc County, Choctaw- 
Chickasaw country, since 1881. 

Adams, Mollie, et al. 

One-fourth blood Choctaw. Born and raised In the Choctaw-Chick- 
asaw country. Member of Scarborough family. 

Dunham, Nannie. 

One-fourth blood Choctaw. Residence, Indian Territory since 1895. 
Member of Scarborough family. 

Scarborough, John. 

One-fourth blood. Removed to Indian Territory prior to June 28, 1898. 
Brother of Nannie Dunham. 

Riddle. Wincy. 

Claims over half Clioot.iw. Residence, Choctflw Nation since 1887. 

Crutchfield, Everett. 

Other members same family on approved rolla * 

BUMGARNER, GeORGE A. 

Scheduled for enrollment by Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. 
Denied enrollment on jurlstlictional grounds. 

Approximate numlK'r of claimants in this memorandum, 10. 

Schu^eldt, Charles E. 

Cherokee by idoption. Files: Records of Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes and letter of Martha Ann Schufeldt of March 16, 1909, 
on file in Indian Office. It is claimed that this boy is a member of the 
band of Shawnees wlio were adopted as Cherokees by treaty stipula- 
tions. It is also claimed that other children who are members of the 
same family have been enrolled. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 267 

Scott, Etta, et al (Including Etta Scott, her five minor children, nnd her 
Bister). 

Creek freedmen. Files: I. T. D. 4840, 12580-1905; also 22 A. A. G. 81. 
The applicants were denied enrollment on technical and jurisdictional 
grounds, although having a clear legal right thereto under Article II of 
the treaty of 1866 between the Creeks and the United States. The first 
of these grounds was that application was not made until July 11, 1904. 
This would have been fatal prior to the act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat., 
137). but by section 1 thereof authority was given to consider applications . 
filed prior to December 1, 1006. Hence this defect was cured. The second 
ground upon which adverse action was possible was that the names of the 
principal applicants (heads of families) were not to be found on the 
Dunn roll, which was ma<le " prior to March 14, 1867." As to this it 
should be noted that the Dunn roll was an imperfect and Incomplete roll 
in that it was completed more than five months prior to the termination 
of the year In which the Creek slaves were allowed to return to the 
Creek Nation by Article II of said treaty. The result of this was that 
beneficiaries under the treaty were deprived of five months of the time 
due Ihoni. It should be noteil also that the older members were eligible to 
enrollment on the Dunn roll. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 7. 

Scott, Lucy. Melvin, Okla. 

Cherokee freedman, new bom. Files; Report of November 15, 1007, 
from Commissioner Uf the Five Civilized Tribes. Newborn case No. 542. 
Application was received May 31, 1906, for the enrollment under the act 
of April 26, 1906, of Lucy Scott, bom September 21, 1903, a child of Jim 
Scott, a noncitlzen of the Cherokee Nation, and Mary Scott, whose name 
api)ears upon the approved roll of Cherokee freedmen opposite No. 3755. 
This child was living March 4. 1906. When this application was first 
received Lucy Scott was listed for enrollment on Cherokee newborn 
card No. 2757, Instead of a Cherokee freedmen newborn card. It being 
recited In the application for the child's enrollment that its mother, 
Mary Scott, was " a citizen by birth of the Cherokee Nation." On Feb- 
ruary 7, 1907, Commissioner Blxby ordered the transfer of the name of 
Lucy Scott from the Cherokee newborn case to a Cberokee freedmen new- 
born case, it being found that the mother was enrolled as a Cherokee 
freedmnn. It appears that no further action was taken looking toward 
the enrollment of Lucy Scott until March 4, 1907, when Mr. Bixby wired 
the department as follows : 

** From evidence now in my office It appears that minor Cherokee freed- 
man applicant, Lucy Scott, is minor child of Mary Scott. Cherokee freed- 
man roll number thirty-seven twenty-two: was bom September twenty- 
one, nineteen hundred three; living March four, nineteen hundred six; 
made application within time limited by act April twenty-six, nineteen 
hundred six, and has been listed on card number five forty-two. I rec- 
ommend that said applicant, Lucy Scott, be placed on minor Cherokee 
freedman roll and approved.*' 

Fearing that the telegram would reach the department too late, the 
commissioner wired his employee, then In Washington, calling his atten- 
tion to the telegram, which was quoted him, in order to secure, if possi- 
ble, the enrollment of this child. March 8, 1907 (I. T. I). 8200-1907), the 
Acting Secretary of the Interior notified the commissioner that said 
telegram was not received in the Secretary's office until March 5, 1907, 
and that no further action could be taken. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1. 

SCBEECHOWL, ANNIE, allaS THOMPSON. 
SCREECHOWL, CONCHEBTY MiCCO. 

(Including two other children referred to but not named In the testimony.) 
Braggs. Okla. 

Creeks by blooil. Files: I^etter of January 22, 1910, Acting Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes to Hon. J. George Wright. The names 
of these claimants were on the list mentioned in the above letter from 
Mr. Ryan, who stated that the r)er8on8 referred to therein were Indians 
who are probably entitled to enrollment and who were not enrolled by 
reason of failure to make application. With his letter Is Inclosed testi- 
mony taken In the field through an Interpreter relating to each case. The 



268 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

principal applicant named herein Is a fnll-blood Creek, 30 years of age. 
She drew the $29 paym«it made by the Creek Nation in 1890 to each 
of its citizens. Several of her children have been enrolled, but not the 
ones referred to above. She says she did not make application for enroll- 
ment because she is a Snake Indian and is opposed to the allotment of 
the lands, believing that under the treaty of 1832 she has land in the 
Creek Nation and did not hnve to make application to the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Trit>es to have any set aside for her. She says, 
however, that she will now accept land, but under protest, as she still 
thinks that the treaty of 1832 holds good. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Sealy, Pebmelia (minor). 

Chickasaw by blood Files : Record in office of Commissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes. This applicant is a full-blood Chickasaw and the child 
of Susan and Isbam Sealy, and was bom April 5, 1899, in due time to be 
entitled to enrollment under the Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement Notice 
of her birth was received by the Dawes Commission about July 17, 1903, 
but the matter was overlooked when later acts providing for the enroll- 
ment of minor children were passed. Both paraits are enrolled as citi- 
zens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, Susan Sealy appearing as No. 
801 and Isham Sealy as No. 3885 upon the approved roll of citizens by 
blood of tho Chickasaw Nation. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Secob, Annie (later AnKie Owen). (Memorandum 244.) Now deceased. 

Bailey, Rufinia (her daughter), Hamden, Okla. 

Choctaw by marriage. File: Part 1 of report of March 3, 1909. Ap- 
plicant claims enrollment through marriage to William H. Secor, Choctaw 
by blood, roll No. 9589; was denied by commission because of temporary 
residence In Texas after her divorce from Indian husband. Decision 
was affirmed by department in the rush incident to closing of the rollB 
prior to March 4, 1907. This applicant had two children, Ruflnia M. 
Bailey (n6e Secor) and Sillln Secor, both of whom have been finally 
enrolled as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation and who resided 
with their said mother from the time they were bom until her death in 
March, 1904. We believe the commission misconstrued the law in this 
case under decisions of the department in a number of cases, notably 
the Joseph D. Yeargain Cherokee case, and certainly if the department 
is to be consistent this woman should be enrolled as a citizen, by inter- 
marriage, of the Choctaw Nation. The record shows that she did not 
abandon her residence and citizenship which had been acquired in the 
Choctaw Nation. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Seitz (uee Lawrknce), Lula. 

('hoctaw»or Cbickastiw by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. 
This wniiinn claims that she is entitled to enrollment as a citizen by 
blood. Iler name ap|)enrs on the freedman roll. She says she was bom 
in 1S71 in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country and that she has resided there 
all her life. She states further that her father, Joe Lawrence, was ai- 
rolled as a Choctaw or Chickasaw, being a full-blood Indian; also that 
he had a brother named Silas, or Si, or Sid, who was enrolled. Claimant 
also states that her mother, Ellen Perry, was a slave, but that she 
(claimant) was bom after the emancipation of her mother. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Shields, Ecius. 

Shields, IUrney. 

Chickasaws by blood. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com- 
missioner to FlVe Civilized Tribes. Applications for the enrollment as 
citizens bv blood of the Chickasaw Nation were received by the Commis- 
sion to thV Five Civilized Tribes ou December 31, 1903, for Ecius Shields, 
born January 10, 1900. and on October 12. 1904, for Barney Shields, bom 
October 1. 1901. These applicants are the children of Simon and Mandy 
Shield (Shields), whose names appear opposite Nos. 637 and 253, re- 
spectively, upon the approved roll of citizens by blood of the Chickasaw 
Nation, and were living September 25, 1902. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, gfgitizedbyV^OOQlC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA^ 269 

SiES, John, et al. 

Choctaw and Chickasaw by blood. Files: See records ludian Office; 
also statement of John Sies made at Chickasha, Okla., November 24, 1908. 
See Part 2, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. This applicant is an old 
man who claims to be a full-blood Indian. His testimony shows, how* 
ever, that his father was one-half Chickasaw and his mother a full-blood 
Choctaw. He was unable to produce sufficient proof to establish that he 
was a full-blood Mississippi Choctaw, or a descendant of a person entitled 
to the benefits of article 14 of the treaty of September 27, 1830, and his 
application was therefore denied as a Mississippi Choctaw. As his name 
could not be identified upon the tribal rolls, he was also denied enroll- 
ment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation, under the act of May 
31, 1900, which limited the jurisdiction of the Dawes Commission to per- 
sons having tribal enrollment. The record in his case shows that he has 
been a continuous resident of the Indian Territory and Oklahoma for 
more than 40 years and that he has occupied and improved tribal land 
during that time. His original application included three or more chil- 
dren. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Snxs, Oliveb (adult). 
Snxs, Lizzie (minor). 

Snxs, Perry (minor). 

Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Records In Indian Office files. March 
2, 1907, these applicants were adjudged by the Secretary of the Interior 
to be entitled to identification as Mississippi Choctaws. Notice of this 
favorable action could not possibly have been given them prior to March 
4, 1907. Even if it had been given, it would have been a physical impos- 
sibility for them to remove to and establish bona fide residence in the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw country, as required by section 41 of the act of 
July 1, 1902. In this case the arbitrary closing of the rolls on March 4, 
1907, deprived the applicants of a right which would have been theirs 
under the Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement. In other words, they were 
[)ermitted under said agreement to establish a right to identification as 
Mississippi Choctaws, and they did establish that right, but were de- 
prived of the fruits of their efforts by a subsequent statute, which took 
from the Secretary the power to approve the enrollment of any person 
after March 4, 1907. 

Number of claimants In this memorandum, 3. 

SiHifONs, Samuel (minor). 
Simmons, Della (minor). 

Simmons, Mandt (minor). 

Creeks by blood. Files: Letter of December 18, 1908, from Fred S. 
Cook, district agent, Checotah, Okla. (See Exhibit F, Pt. IV, report 
Mar. 3, 1909.) Mr. Cook reports that these persons are full-blood 
Indians, who, through ignorance or mistake, have been left off the ap- 
proved rolls, and that their parents belong to the Snake faction of 
Indians, and that their cases should be given every consideration, for 
the reason that their said parents, owing to their affiliation with the 
Snakes, prevented the enrollment of these children and the allotment of 
land to them. They are the children of Charley Simmons, post-office 
address Hanna, Okla. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 3. 

Sinclair, Sallie M., et al. 

I!)oBBs Jennie et al. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
These claimants are sisters. It is alleged that Mrs. Sinclair and Mrs. 
Dobbs are the children of Sarah Benge; that the latter was the daugh- 
ter of one Benge, a full-blood Cherokee tu^d an early settler in the 
Cherokee Nation. It is claimed that these people placed their case in 
the hands of attorneys, but that, so far as they were ever Informed, it 
was never investigated by the Dawes Commission. The other appli- 
cants are members of their families. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 10. 



Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



870 FIVK CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Smith, Bessie. 

SuAGEE, Jennie and Nannie. 

Shade, Striker. * 

Scott, Ista. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: Report Acting (Dommissioner to the Five 
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright 
Bessie Smith, daughter of Bill Smith, a Cherokee, and Phenie Poorboy, a 
white woman. Age, unknown. No application of record. Jennie and 
Nannie Suagee, children of Stand and Yorksie Suagee, Cherokees. No 
application of record. Striker Shade, 7 years old, son of Bushyhead and 
Allie Shade, Cherokees. No application of record. Ista Scott, child of 
Liza Scott, a Creek, and whos^ father appears to have be^ Cherokee 
(name unknown). No application of record. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 4. 

Smith, James R., et al. (including children). 

Choctaws by blood. F^les: Part III, report March 3, 1909. This man 
states that he was born in Mississippi and that he removed to the Choc- 
taw Nation in 1895; he also states that his mother was a full-blood 
Choctaw and that his father was a white man. If his statements are 
true, he removed to the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., prior to the time fixed 
by the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, and was entitled by reason of his 
Choctaw blood to reafBlinte with the tribe. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately, 5. 

Smith, Maby. 

Choctaw by blood. Files: Records in Indian Office, the Commissioner 
to the Five Civilized Tribes, and Part U J^xhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
This woman claims that her fatlier was a full-blood Choctaw, or nearly a 
full blood, and partly white; tliat her mother was one-fourth Choctaw 
and probably balance negro. She and her mother are enrolled as freed- 
men. She also claims that her father lives near Idabel, in Choctaw 
Nation, and that his name is Daniel Webster. 

Note. — Examination of approved Choctaw by blood rolls shows three, 
persons thereon named ** Daniel Webster." 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Smith, Mary Ann. 
Choate, Annie Ck)RiNi. 
Choate, Robert. 
Choate, Ed. 

Choate, Jewel Ella. 

Choctiiws by blood. Files : Part IV, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. 
The Information relating to this family is furnished by Mr. S. G. Brink, 
district Indian agent, McAlester, Okla., who reports that Mary Ann 
Smith, age 18, of Ilartshorne, Okla., appeared at his office and claimed to 
be entitled to enrollment as a Choctaw, stating that her father, John 
Smith, is a white man and that her mother, Eliza Page, is a half-blood 
Clioctaw. The other claimants named above are the brothers and sisters 
of Mary Ann Smith. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum, 5. 

Smith, Nancy (unsound mind). 

Choctaw by blood. Deimrtment files, Op. A. A. G., June 8. 1901. 16 
A. A. G., 21. This woman was denied enrollment under the act of 
May 31. ItKK), on the ground thjit the Dawes Commission was without 
jurisdiction to receive or consider her application, because her name could 
not be irtoutified uiton the tribal rolls or as tliat of a i)erson who had 
been admitted to enrollniv^nt by the tribal authorities or by the Govern- 
ment of the United States. The papers submitted in her case tend to 
show that she is by doseonl a Choctaw Indian: that at the time of her 
said application she was 4S years old, and that she had been of unsound 
mind for 31 years. This case illustrates that the act of May 31, 1900, did 
not give the Dawes Commission broad enough jurisdiction to permit 
of a proper consideration of all case« <»n their merits. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1- ^<-^ ^ 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 271 

Smith, William C. 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Case on file in office of Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes. See also Part IV, Exhibit F., report March 3, 1909. 
This man was denied enrollment by the Dawes Commission' nnder act of 
May 31, 1900, on the ground that under said act It had no jurisdiction 
to consider his case, because his name could not be Identified on the , 
tribal rolls. The record shows that some time between 1.S7G and 3879 he 
was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the 
Federal penitentiary at Detroit, Mich., where he had died December 13. 
1903. He was undoubtedly a Cherokee by blood. It was claimed that 
his degree of Indian blood was one-fourth. The record shows that he 
was recognized by the tribal authorities as a citizen; also that it was 
claimed he was on the 1876 Cherokee roll, but the commission was never 
able to secure this roll from the tribal authorities. This is an impor- 
tant case, because it is typical of a class of cases embracing probably 
hundreds of people who were denied enrollment not because it appeared 
from the rcords in their cases that they were not entitled thereto, but 
instead merely by reason of lack of jurisdiction. The act of May 31, 
1900, supra, was responsible for this condition of affairs. 

Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1. 

Speakeb, Peter. 

Speaker, Che-Yaw-Si (Btrrsv). 

Foreman, Thomas. 

BULLTROG, ChELOUSA. 

Cherokees by blood. Files: The record in these cases is on file in 
the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. These claim- 
ants are all full-blood Cherokee Indians. It is nndei stood that they 
were members of the Snake Band or faction known in the Cherokee 
Nation as ** Knight Hawks." Thomas Foreman is grandson of Peter 
Speaker. Chelousa Bullfrog is adopted child of the latter. Their appli- 
cation was dismissed because of lack of proof to show that they were 
living September 1, 1002. The testimony in the cjise shows, however, 
that they were living as late as August — , 1902. Probably Information 
concerning them can be obtained from Mr. J. W. Cra^g, of Tahlequah, 
who originally made application for their enrollment. 

Number of claimants, 4. 

Spring WATER, Eli, Long, Okla. ' 

Cherokee by blood. Files : Report of November 15, 1907, from Commis- 
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Case No. memorandum 200. Appli- 
cation for the enrollment of this applicant was made August 1, 1000. 
Emily A. Springvvater, his mother, is a white woman and alleges that she 
was married to Johnson Spring^vater. the father of Eli Springwater, in 
1888 or 1889, and that they live<l together for alxuit thrt^ years. Other 
than her uncorroborated testimony, there is no eviednce of the marriage 
of herself and Springwater. hut from the information received it appears 
that they lived together for almut three years: that the child, ¥1\\ Si>rlng- 
water, was born while they were living together; that he was recognized 
in the community as their child, and also by his putative father, Johnson 
Springwater. The name of Eli Springwater can not be Identltied upon 
any of the tribal rolls of the Cherokee Nation in the possession of this 
office. Johnson Springwater is identified upon the 1880 Cherokee tribal 
roll, Sequoyah district, at No. 1213, and his name appears upon the ai)- 
proved roll of citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation opposite No. 25720. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. 

Starr Walter (minor). 

Creek by blood. Files: Part III, reiK)rt March 3, 1909. This boy Is 
about 13 or 14 years of age. Both iMirents are full-blood Creeks and have 
received allotments. It appears that, following the death of his father, 
no one took sufficient Interest in him to make application for his enroll 
ment. 
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. / 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



872 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 

Stephenson (Stevenson), Dick, et al. 
Stephenson, Benjamin, et al. 
Williams, Henderson, et al. 
Stevenson, Riley, et al. 
Williams, John E. 

Douglas, EIabnest. 

Chickasiiws by blood. Files: I*arrs I and II. Exhibit F, report March 
3, 1009. These people seek transfer from the Chickasaw freedinan iloll 
to the Chickasaw blood rolls, claiming that they were enrolled as de- 
scendants of a woman named Laney. supposed to be a slave, but that 
said ancestor was hi fact a freo Indian woman, who was stolen from the 
Indian Territory and sold elsewhere as a slave. In supiiort of this con- 
tention the applicants state that the said ancestor was adjudged to be a 
free woman by the case of Laney r. Jones,. by the district court at Paris, 
Tex., and the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. It is understood 
that the case was finally disposed of because no application was of record 
showing claim by blood asserted prior to December 25, 1902. 

Number of principal applicants. 0. 

Swadley, Minebva F. 

Swadley, John W. W. 

Choctaws by blood. Indian Office files. Land 21072-1909. Departm^it 
files 5-61. Minerva F. Swadley was adjudged entitled to enroUm^it 
December 35, 1900, by the Commissioner to the Vive Civilljsed Tribee. 
This decision wj's altirnied l)y the Secretary February 16, 1907. A sched- 
ule was prepared containing her name. This schedule was disapproved 
by the Secretary March 4, VXYl. without uotice or opportunity for hearing, 
in supposed compliance with an opinion rendered February 19, 1907, by 
the Attorney (ieuernl. Query: Did the favorable declFion of the Secre- 
tary of February 16, 1907, constitute in legal effect an enrollment? If 
so, was she deprived of same by due process of law? By letter of August 
9, 1909 (File 5-51), the department restored the name of her husband, 
William F. Swadley, to the approved roll, it having been stricken there- 
from without notice. Thus it will l»e noted that he is en joy ing the b<aieflts 
of citizenship because of marriage with a woman who has been deprived 
of those benefits. The said John W. W. Swadley is the son of Minerva 
F. Swadley, and has the same natural right to enrollment as his mother. 
A decision was rendered by the Conunissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes 
holding that his parents were entitled to enrollment but that he was 
not so entitled. This decision was affirmed by that of the Secretary of 
February 16, 1907, referred to above. 

Number of clnininiits in this nieniorandum, 2. 

Swimmer, Nancy (minor child of a dumb woman). 

Cherokee by blood. Files: Case mu die in Office of Commissioner to the 
Five Civilized Tribes. May 2, 1902. Charlotte French, a full-blood Chero- 
kee Indian, whose post office is Stillwater, Okla., applied for the ^iroll- 
ment of her ward. Nancy Swimmer, whose age at that time was given 
as 7 years, as a citizen by blood of the Cherokee Nation. The testimony 
shows that Nancy Swinuiipr is the child of John Swimmer (or Weaver 
or possibly Beaver) and a dumb woman named Tianna or Annie; that 
both of said parents were full -blood Cherokees and recognized citizens 
of the Nation; that her fiiiher is dead and her mother living. «nd that 
sufficient Information could not be obtained from which to identify either 
of the parents of Nancy Swimmer on any of the tribal rolls of tine 
Cherok*»e Nation, February 27. 1907. the Conuulssioner to the Five Civi- 
lized Tribes issued an order holding that, under the provisions of th