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 0 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 0 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≪ 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 EMtOLLlIEHT 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 0
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
0 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
class 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 VjQQQlC
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
0 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 the act
of May 31, 1900, he was without authority to receive, consider, or make
any record of the application for the enrollment of Nancy Swimmer, and
his order was approved by the department March 4, 1907. This case
illustrates that the act of May 31, 1900, by depriving the Dawes Com-
mission of the necessary jurisdiction, rendered it unable to enroll a full-
blood Cherokee minor.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 273
Tables, Jim.
Creek freedman. Files: Statement of Mr. Tiger, wJb<» is a Hon of the
principal chief of the Creek Nation and official interpreter in office of
district agent, HoldenvlUe, Okla. See Part III, Exhibit F, report
March 3, 1909. This ohilniant is a Creek freedman, about 70 years old.
He was inclined to take sides with the Snake faction and so failed to
secure enrollment. He has five children, whose names are on the ap-
proved rolls of Creek freedmen.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Taylor, Alfred, et al. ( including hie children ) .
Choctaw and Chickasaw by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3,
1909. This man claims that his father was three-fourths blood Choctaw
and that his mother was a full-blood Chickasaw. He says that he was .
bom In Mississippi. His statements show that he has led a nomadic
life and that he did not reach the Indian Territory until about 1906. '
This family has no rights which entitle its members to claim at the ex- .
pense of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations* land, but, In view of the
fact that they appear to be Choctaw Indians by blood, the United States '
should purchase for each 40 acres of land in Oklahoma, as was done in
the case of the Choctaw -Chickasaw freedmen.
Number of claimants In this memorandum, approximately 5.
Thomas, Wilson.
Choctaw by blood. Files: See letter of January 30, 1009, on file In
Indian Office from Charles Knapp, district agent, Hugo, Okla., and affi-
davits filed therewith. From the above it appears that this claimant Is
a full-blood Indian, who speaks only the Choctaw language. The author
of the affidavit is Mr. Samuel Jones, who was an Interpreter at Mr.
Knapp's office. Claimant has a brother, Benson Thomas, a full-blood
citizen of the Choctaw Nation, whose name appears upon the final ap-
proved rolls. It Is said Wilson Thomas can not speak a word of Eng-
lish- His present residence not known. Several years ago he lived at
Soper, Okla. No reason Is known for his failure to secure enrollment^
but It is supposed that he failed to make application within the time
limit required by law.
Number of claimants, 1.
Thompson (nee Sawanociee), Kizzie, et al. (including two brothers and a
sister).
Sawanogee, John.
Sawanogee, Simon.
Sawanogee, Nancy.
Creeks by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1009. The principal
applicant claims to be a full-blood Creek. She is 35 years old and speaks
only the Creek language. She says that both of her parents were full-
blood Creeks ; that her father's name was Sawanogee ; that her mother's
name was Wynle; that her mother and brother were enrolled, but that her
father died too early to be enrolled. It appears that the other persons
named above are brothers and sister of Kizzie, and that they have never
been enrolled. It further appears that the early residence of this claimant
was in the Choctaw Nation, but that she has lived in the Creek Nation
for the last 17 or 18 years. Probably she was a member of one of those
families residing on or near the boundary line between the two nations —
sometimes in one and sometimes in the other.
Number of claimants in this monorandum, 4.
Thompson, Martha (7-5918), Eaglestown, Okla.
Choctaw by marriage. File : Part I of report of March 3, 1909. "Ap-
plicant claims by marriage In 1874 with Robert Thompson, deceased;
Identified on 1893 and 1896 Choctaw tribal rolls. They have family of
children on final roll by blood. Applicant has some negro blood and
denied by commission and decision affirmed about March 4. 1907, by
department on this account. Same question involved as in case of
Mattie Doak."
Number of claimants on this memorandum. 1.
69282—13 18
Digitized by VjOOQIC
274 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
ToMHKA (Christian name unltnown ) , (minor).
Choctaw by blood. Files: See memorandum of information obtained
November 12, 1908, at Hugo. Okla.. from Mr. Peter Hudson, special
Choctaw delegnte. with Pnrt I. Exhibit F. report March 3. 1909. This
child lives at or near Lukfuta, Okla. She is the offspring of members of
the Snake faction. Her father's name was Otson Tomhka; her mother's,
Lucy Tomhka. The child was bom prior to March 4, 19(M5, and sur\ived
that date for several months. The omission of her name was probably
due to the fact that her parents belonged to the Snake faction, which was
hostile to the enrollment of tlte people.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Tubby (Tubbee), Sim.
Tubby, Nekly Meely.
Tubby, Winner or Wimkr.
Tubby, Dave.
Tubby, Annis or Annie.
MisBlsslppi Choctaws or Choctaws by blood. Files : Part IV, Exhibit F,
report March 3. 1909. It is alleged that the principal applicant is a
half-blood Choctaw and that the other applicants are her children, their
father being one Sim Tubbee, who was identified as a full-blo«kl Missis-
sippi Choctaw, but who failed to establish proof of removal to the Choc-
taw Nation. The failure of the mother and children to be identified was
probably due to the fact that they could not furnish the technical proof
required of mixed-blood Choctaws or compliance with article 14 of the
treaty of 1830 by their ancestors.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 5.
Tustunuggee et al. (including unnamed brothers and sisters).
Creeks by blood. Files: Part III, report March 3, 1909. The principal
applicant, referred to above, was born about 11 or 12 months ago. Both
parents were full-blood Creeks. Her father died some time since. Her
mother has an allotment as a Creek citizen. The claimant has brothers
and sisters who have the same mother as herself, but a different father.
This child speaks only the Creek language. Their failure to secure enroll-
ment seems to have been due to misunderstanding, the matter having been
left to a member of the Creek C>)uncil, who neglected to attend to It.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, approximately 5.
Unknown Choct.\w.
Choctaw by blood. Files: Memorandum of statement by Mr. Tom
Hunter, ex-candidate for governor of the Choctaw Nation, made at
Hugo, Okla., November 12, 1908. See Part I, Exhibit F. report March 3,
1909. In the course of an interview with Mr. Hunter on the above date
he stated that there was a {)er8on whoso nan»e he was unable to state
living south of Boswell, Okla.. entitled to enrollment as a Choctaw by
blood. He also state<l that he thought there were other cases of which
he had some record and promised to advise Mr. Knapp, the district
agent. In case he should come across them.
Number of j)ers()n8 in this memorandum. 1.
Unknown F\u,l-blood Indian and Minor Son.
Choctaws by blood. Files: Statement of Mr. J. M. Humphrey, made
November 10. 1908, at office of district agent, Atoka, Okla. See Part I.
Exliil>it F, report March 3. 1009. According to Mr. Humphrey's state-
ment this old lu'lian w:»s a f nil-blood Choctaw who at one time em-
ployetl him to represent the case before the Dawes Commission. Mr.
Ilunjphrey says that he could prove by old Indians he knew and who
knew him that he had resideil In the Choctaw Nation for a number of
years, and that in all probability he came to the Indiau Territory
among the early settlers from Mls8lssii)pi, after the ** Dancing Ilabblt "
treaty: that his enrollment was refused for the- reason that his name
did not appear on the tribal rolls. Mr. IIumi)hrey stated further that
he refused to consider these cases after finding that the act of May 31.
19(X). seemed to apply to them, and that he advised them that their
case was hopeless, and that the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
would not receive their a plication for the reason that their names did
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE C5IVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 276
not appear upon the roll of citizens prepared by the tribal authoritieB;
that these ludlaDS resided near Legal, Okla., and that Mr. D. A. Law-
rence, at Non, Okla., can give some information relative to them.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2.
Unnamed Child.
Chicljasaw by blood. Files: Memorandum of November 10, 1908, made
at district agent's office, Atolia, Okla. See Part I, Exhibit h\ report
March 3, 1909. The memorandum is as follows: "Mr. Mills, the dis-
trict agent at Atoka, also tells me that in conversation with Al Con-
stant, ex-Federal district clerk, that he learned of a child residing at
Roff, Okla., reported to be a full-blood Chickasaw Indian, who haa
failed to secure enrollment. This child was l>orn in 1904. The details
are not known at present. Will obtain information from Mr. Constant
sufficient to locate this child."
. Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Vaughn, Allen J., et al.
Choctaws by blood. Including Anna M. Harding and Robert L.
Vaughn and their families.
Approximate numl>er, 10.
Rentie, Fred, (minor).
Bbntik, Stella (minor). «
Creeks by blood.
Number of claimants, 2.
Maitdel, Zelmobe (minor).
Makxtel, Caesab (minor).
Creek freedmen.
Number of claimants, 2.
TiflBB, SuNDAT (minor).
Creek by blood.
Number of claimants, 1.
TuBWBTTLL (Christian name not known).
Choctaw by blood. (Minor child of Bttle Tumbull.)
Number of claimants, 1.
Lee, Robebt.
Mississippi Choctaw.
Number of claimants, 1.
TiTBBY, DOLPHUS.
Mississippi Choctaw.
Number of claimants, 1.
Files: Part II, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. (See also records
of Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes and Indian Office.)
Vaughn, Robkbt Ij. (alias To-palah-homa ) .
One-fourth Choctaw, by blood. Number of claimants, 1.
Bab:eb, Annie, et al.
Bbown, Joseph H., et al.
Citizens by adoption, birth, and intermarriage. Number of claimants, 2.
PaTTEBSON, DoCTOB DTVINriY.
Choctaw by blood. Number of claimants, 1.
Pbuit, Henby, et al.
Choctaw by blood and intermarriage. Number of claimants, 1.
Cabson, Millabd D.
Chickasaw by adoption, birth, and intermarriage. Number of claim-
ants, 1.
BUTLEB, Charley.
Chickasaw freedman. Number of claimants, 1.
Chapman. K. L., et al.
Choctaw or Chickasaw. Number of claimants, 1.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
276 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Morgan, Fbank P.
Choctaw by intermarriage. Number of claimants^ 1.
Wbstbbook, Thomas A.
Chickasaw by blood. Number of claimants, 1.
Sledge, Daniel, et al.
Sledge, Will, et al.
GoBDON, Harriet, et al.
Tucker, George, et al.
Tucker, Tom, et al.
Choctaws by blood. Number of claimants, 5.
Williams, Margaret.
Chickasaw by blood. Claims to be the daughter of a full-blood
Chickasaw named Thomas Mikey, alias Che-mikey, by a free woman
of color. Seeks transfer from freedman to blood roUa Number of claim-
ants, 1.
Wagoner, Tenny (born in 1865).
Choctaw or Chickasaw freedman. Files: Part II, Exhibit F, report
March 3, 1909. This woman claims to have Indian and negro blood, but
she asks only for enroUinent as a freedman. She says that her mother
was a slave, and it is probable she was also. Her failure to secure en-
rollment seems to have been due to the fact that application was not
made for her In due time.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Walker,
Cherokee by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to Five Civ-
ilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright
Walker, child of James and Takey Walker, Cherokees. No-
application of record.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Wall, Samuel C, et al.
Thompson, Giles.
Wall, Noah.
Offspring and descendants of Choctaws by birth, being descendants of
white persons who were adopted as citizens of the Choctaw Nation prior
to treaty of 1866. ' Files: See records of Indian Office and report March
3, 1909. Giles Thompson and Noah Wall became citizens of the Choctaw
Nation prior to the treaty of 1830, and their names are mentioned in arti-
cle 2 of the supplementary articles thereof. They were unquestionably
citizens of the Choctaw Nation at the date of said treaty, which guaran-
teed that the lands conveyed thereby should inure to the members
of the Choctaw Nation and their "descendants." After the Choc-
taws migrated west they continued to form a part of the tribe, and Giles
Thompsou, at least, was officially recognized in various ways thereafter,
his name ai)i>earlng in the Choctaw laws. The slaves of Giles Thompson
were enrolled and are now sharing in the lands of the Choctaw Nation
by reason of the fact that their master was a citizen of said nation. His
children consider it very unjust that they have not been accorded even
the pri\ileges of his slaves. The right of the offspring of thes^ persons
was denied on the mistaken assumption that their rights were subject to
the same rules as the offspring of white parents who acquired Choctaw
and Chickasaw citizenship subsequent to the tribal acts of 1875 and 1876,
under which the right of citizenship became personal only. This case in-
cludes William J. Thompson and his sister, Myrtle Randolph, and others.
Number of clalmjints in this memorandum approximate 10.
Ward, John, et al.
York, n^ Wabd, Sabah, et al.
Choctaws by adoption or Cherokees by blood. Files : Indian Office rec-
ords; see files of Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes; also Part I, Ex-
hibit F. report March 3, 1909. Mr. Ward and his sister, Mrs. York. claUn
to be Choctaws by descent from an adopted citizen, being the children
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IK OKLAHOMA. 277
of one Samuel Ward, who acquired Choctaw citizenship by intermarriage
in 1848. Their mother, who was of Cherokee and white descent, was the
second wife of the said Samuel Ward. The other claimants are related
to them lineally, and perhaps collaterally, and by marriage. All claim
that the Choctaw Nation is their home, alleging that all their interests
are there, and that such interests represent the efforts of a lifetime. It
is represented on behalf of Mr. Ward and his sister that they are persons
of excellent standing in their community, and that they have considered
themselves citizens of the Choctaw Nation for many years and have
always acted as such. It is alleged, and probably Is true, that Jolm Ward
has held important offices under the Choctaw Nation, and has been recog-
nized in many ways as a citizen thereof, having l)een one of the most
potent forces for law and order In said nation. The applicants claim that
inasmuch as Samuel Ward was a citizen by intermarriage prior to the
treaty of 1866, he acquired, by virtue of article 38 thereof, exactly the
status of a native-bom Choctaw or Chickasaw. Their case was dis-
posed of by Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes In January, 1907,
according to the ruling of the department in another case which was
not analogous to this one. Their cases were not acted upon by the
department until March 4, 1907, and were then disposed of in a blanket
decision Involving 48 cases, which included practically all classes of
applicants in the Choctaw Nation. Under the Opinion of the Assistant
Attorney General for the Interior Department in the case of the Bacon
children, John Ward and his sister were, the facts conceded, probably
entitled to enrollment. Their case is to be distinguished from that of the
children of parents who acquired citizenship under the Choctaw-Chicka-
saw acts of 1875-76, because said acts contain provisions not found in said
article 38, treaty of 1866. The claims of the other parties to these cases
are different, but all are so closely related that the whole matter should
be reviewed.
Nimiber of claimants in this memorandum, 28.
Washington (or Watebs or Dansby), Kate.
Chickasaw by blood. Statement of David Washington at Atoka, No-
vember 10, 1908, Part I, Exhibit F, report of March 3. 1909. It Is alleged
that this woman is the daughter of Charley Dansby, and that his degree
of Chickasaw blood was one-half or more. Also, that no application was
made for her enrollment because her first husband, who had charge of
the matter, was a person of weak mind, or of little ability, and lacked
sufficient ability and intelligence to attend to business matters.
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1.
Washington, Melvina.
Choctaw by blood. Files : Part III, report of March 3. 1909. This woman
claims that she was bom in the Indian Territory in 1869, or 1870, and that
her parents were free persons. She says that her father, whose name was
Phillip Battiest, was a full-blood Choctaw : that her mother, whose name
was Nancy Chukmubbe, was part negro and part Indian, and that the
latter was a free woman when she (Melvina) was bom. The claimant
also alleges that she has never been out of the Indian Territory to live.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
West (n^ Shockley), Loula, et al.
6HOCKLEY, Mattie, et al.
Choctaws by blood. Files: Records of Indian Office. These families
were denied enrollment under circumstances which entitle them to
remedial legislation, and I therefore recommend that the facts be brought
to the attention of Congresa They were adjudged entitled to enrollment
by various officers and tribunals, including the Secretary of the Interior,
but their names were not actually inscribed on rolls approved by hlra. A
few days before the elope of the enrollment work the Secretary rescinded
the favorable decision theretofore rendered by him. This was done with-
out notice to the applicant, pursuant to an opinion rendered by the At-
torney General February' 19. 1907 (26 Ops. A. O., 127. 150), based upon
the fact that a decision was rendered by the Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizen-
ship Court, at one stage of the enrollment work, denying their right to
enrollment. The final adverse action of the Secretary was taken during
a period when there was great hurry, confusion, and uncertainty. There
Digitized by V^OOQIC
878 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
was not mifflcient time to deliberate over matters or to reconrtder cases.
But if there had been a little time for reflection it would have been ap-
parent— as it now is — that his action was due to mistnlce or oversight in
the preparation of said opinion. I Imse this statement on a report r«i-
dered by the Attorney General March 4, 1907, to the President. The
latter directed the Secretary of the Interior to treat this report as a
formal opinion. Unfortunately it did not reach the Interior Department
until March 6. 1907. too late to be of any use In the enrollment work.
It resulted from the fact that a very meritorious case was brought to the
attention of the President by Senator Curtis and others of a man who
was stricken from the approved rolls in supposed compliance with the
opinion of February 19, 1907, supra. In that case the man was originally
adjudged entitled to enrollment by the Dawes Commission. An appeal
was talcen by the Choctaw Nation to the United States court, and he waa
again successful. As he had judgments in his favor by both tribunals,
the Attorney General advised the President that, concurring with Soiator
Curtis and Mr. Harr, he considered that the man was not required by law
to transfer his case to the citizenship court and that the opinion of Feb-
ruary 19, 1907. had- no application to such persons. The case of the
Shockley and West families was precisely the same, except that, being
igrorant or uncertain as to their duty, they submitted their cases to
the citizenship court. This was done, however, under protest Mort-
over, Indians should not be bound by such a mistake. Favorable deci-
sions and recomniend-itlons have been made as to these applicants as
follows: (1) July 15, 18S9. decision by United States Indian agent; (2)
January 8. 1890, recommendation by Commissioner of Indian Affairs; (3)
January 9, 1890, decision by Secret^iry of the Interior; (4) December 5,
1896, decision by Dawes Commission; (5) August 30, 1897, decision by
United States court, on appeal ; <6) February 10, 1905. opinion by Assist-
ant Attorney General, Interior Department, approved by Secretary; (7)
December 8, 1905, opinion by Assistant Attorney General, Interior Depart-
ment, approved by Secretary; (8) March 19, 1906, decision by Commis-
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes; (9) December 22, 1906, recommenda-
tion by Commissioner of Indian Affairs; (10) January 7, 1907, decision
by Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Pollock and Gen. Webster are familiar
with the West cases. The latter prepared the opinions referre<i to above
(see Nos. 6 and 7). and the former approved them. I have met and con-
versed with Mrs. West and her children. The family hns the appearance
of being of Indian blood.
Number of applicants, approximately, 12.
White, Tommy, et al. (U C. R. 4363).
Mississippi Choctaws. Files: Part IV, Exhibit F, report March 3,
1909. These people are full-blood Choctaws. The parents were identified
as such by the Dawes Commission. It was learned by the commission, in
connection with this case, that there were children who were also en-
titled to identification as full bloods, and an effort was made through an
Interpreter to secure their names, but without avail. In this aise. as in
others, the parents were suspicious of the Government officials and would
not appear before them.
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 5.
Wiggins, Celia. Post office: Depew, Okla.
Creek by blood. Files: Claimant's letter of May 25. 1905. on file to
Indian Office. This woman claims to be a three-fourths-blood Indian.
She alleges that her father was a full-blood Creek and that her mother
was a half-blood Indian.
Number of claimants in this memorandom, 1.
Williams, Dina (minor).
Williams, Bettie (minor).
Williams, Ciiosley (minor).
Creeks bv blood. Files: I>etter of December 18, 1908. from Fred S.
O)ok, district agent, Checotah, Okla. See Exhibit F. Part IV. report
March 3. 1909. Mr. Cook reports that these persons are full-blood In-
dians who, through Ignorance or mistake, have been left off the approved
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
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 279
the enrollment of these children and the allotment of land to them. They
are the children of Cinda Williams and Big Williams, and their ages are
12, 8, and 6 years, respectively.
Nnmber of claimants In this memorandum, 3.
Williams, Sallie. (9-R-22.) (L T. D., 5840, 15434—1006.) P(»st office: Katie,
Okla.
WjIXIAJfS, Mabcus.
WnxiAMs, Cora.
WuxiAiis. Kimble.
Williams, Maise.
Williams. Job.
Williams, Lyman.
Chickasaws by blood. File: Part I of report of March 3. IJMK). Sallie
Williams, principal applicant, is daughter of Maulsey Kimble Ui^e Ma-
hardy), a Chickasaw by blood, and sister of Wyatte Mahardy, ('hickasaw
by blood; roll No. 2974. Maulsey Kimble died prior to preparation of
1803 roll. Sallie Williams Is full sister of Angeline Porter and half sister,
by same mother, of Amanda Abram, both of whom have been Anally en-
rolled as Clilekasaws by blood. The name of Richard Kimble, who is
father of Angeline Porter and Sallie Williams, and stepfather of Amanda
Abram. is found on Capt. HcuderHou Greenwood's annuity roll of Decem-
ber 18, 1878, as the head of a family of five, opposite Xo. 209, from which
it appears that he drew $9.50 for himself, his wife, and three female
children. Unquestionably, the three female children were the three
daughters above named. Sallie Williams was born and has always ^Ived
in the Chickasaw Nation. There is no doubt about her being of Chicka-
saw blood, and that her ancestors were recognized citizens is equally true.
Her name can not be found upon the 1803 or 1S1K> rolls, l)iit this is a case
where equity should step in and give justice to this woman and her chil-
dren. It Is contended, however, that the depnrtment had jurisdiction
heretofore to enroll these applicants upon this 1878 enrollment by the
tribe. All the above facts will appear from the record in the case.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 7.
Williams. Sophie (age 70).
Choctaw by blood or Mississippi Choctaw. Files: Statement of claim-
ant given at office of district agent, Hugo, Okla., November 11. 1908. See
Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. Although this woman claims to
be a full-blood Choctaw, her name does not appear upon the approved
rolls. Her statement was taken through an Interpreter, Mr. Sam Jones,
who is himself a Choctaw by blood. No one could doubt her Choctaw
blood after seeing her and hearing her statement Interpreted. She claims
that she Is the daughter of John Lewis and wife, both full -blood Choc-
taws; that she removed to the Indian Territo^ry from Louisiana about
Christmas time of 1901, and that she has resided In said nation ever
since. This woman would not be entitled to enrollment under the Curtis
Act, because she did not remove to the Choctaw Nation prior to June 28,
1898. She would be entitled to enrollment, however, as a MisslssippiJi
Choctaw under section 41 of the Choctaw-Chickasaw supplemental agree-
ments Inasmuch as she Is a full-blood Choctaw. Hor residence In the
Choctaw Nation would also entitle her to the benefits of a Mississippi
Choctaw. Failure to make application seems to be tlie only bar to her
claim.
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1.
WiiTBocK (given name unknown).
Choctaw by blood. Files : Memorandum made at oftice of <iistrict Indian
agent. Antlers, Okla., November 13, 190S. Part I, Exhibit F. reiM)rt March
3, 1909. Mr. Robert B. Jjee. of Leflore, Okla.. who Is a merchant and
educated Choctaw, reported the case of a child 2 or 3 years of age who
had failed to secure enrollment. He stated that the father of the child
is Wattle Winbock, a full-blood Indian, who resides near T<iefk»re, and
that the mother Is a white woman. Mr. T-ee does not know why the child
was not enrolled.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1. r^ 1
Digitized by VjOOQIC
280 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Wilson, Agnfs (Minor.)
Hodges, Maby. (2kIlnor.)
Choctaws by blood. Memorandum of statement by Chas. Knaw), dls-
ti-lct IiKllan agent. Hugo, Okla., made November 12, 1908 (See Pt I
Ex. F, rei)ort Mar. 3, 1900. > TheFe children, whose ages are 12 and
14 years, respectively, were reported by Mr. Knapp as living 5 miles
north of Garvin. He states that he found them in a destitute condition,
almost without clothing:. They are the children of Mrs. Sarah Wilson
and Hannibal Hodges, both full-blood Choctawa After these children
were bom the father left the locality and was nevw seen there any
more. It is supposed that he served a term in Fort Leavenworth Peni-
tentiary.
Mr. Sam Jones, who acted as policeman and Indian interpreter and
who is a Choctaw by blood, also saw these children. When they visited
the children they found them engaged in grinding corn by pounding it on
rocks. Their clothing consisted of nothing but rags, through which their
naked bodies could be seen. It is said that their mother has an allot-
ment. This may be true, as the name Sallle Wilson appears upon the
final approved rolls opposite No. 5832 as that of a full-blood Choctaw
woman, age 4H. The right of the mother, however, should be ascer-
tained by careful investigation Inasmuch as she may not be identical
with the i>erson whose name appears opposite No. 5832.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 2.
Wilson, Harriett. (Including all other children of Harriett Wilson by the
same father.)
Flack (n^ Wilson). Anna.
Jones (n^e Wilson). Martjia.
Choctaws by blood. Files: Record in case on file in Indian Office.
(See also statement of Harriett WlLsou. made Nov. 10, 1908, at office
of district Indian agent, Atoka, Okla., recorded in Pt I, Exhibit F, report
Mar. 3, 1909.) Harriett Wilson and her two daughters named above are
enrolUMl as Choctaw freedmeiL but they claim to be entitled to enroll-
ment as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. Harriett Wilson claims
to be entitled to enrollment as a quarter-blood Choctaw, it being alleged
that her father was Edmorkl Colbert and that he was half-blood Indian.
It appears, however, that her mother was a slave. In view of the fact
last stated it wonKl seem that Harriett Wilson must also have been a
slave, as she was Imm prior to the emancipation' of the Choctaw-Chicka-
saw slaves. The cases of the other two applicants named are much
stronger than that of their mother. It is claimed that they are the
daughters of John Wil-son. a full-blood Choctaw: and as they were bom
subsequent to the emancipation of their mother they would be entitled
to enrollment as citizens by blood if the statements of Harriett Wilson
are accurate. The application of Harriett Wilson for transfer to the
bloml rolls was denied because not made within the time prescribed by
law. In connection herewith, see memorandum relating to Katie Wilson
et al.
Number of claimants named in this memorandum, 3.
Wilson, Katie. (Including also the other children of Katie Wilson.)
Wilson, Blanche. (Minor.)
Brown, Pfrnelia.
Choctaws by blood. Files : Kecord on file in Indian Office. ( See also
statement of Katie Wilson, made Nov. 27, 1908, at office of district
Indian agent. Mc.Mester. Okla.. recorded in Pt. III. Ex. F, report Mar.
3. 190iK) The persons are enrolled as Choctaw freedmen, but their
cases are not dependent upon the same facts. The mother claims
to be entitled to enrollment as a one-fourth blood Choctaw, alleging
that her father was Edmond Colbert, a half-blood Indian. She states
however, that her mother was a slave. It is a very close question
whether Katie was born before or after the emancipation of the Choctaw
slaves. If before, she was a slave, and her enrollment as a freedman
was proper. Her ai>plication Tor transfer to the blood rolls was dismissed
because made too late. The case of Blanche Wilson is much stronger
than that of her mother, the child being the daughter of an alleged full-
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IX OKLAHOMA. 281
blood Indian. Blanche looks more like an Indian than a colored person.
The Indian blood is strongly predominant. Contrast this case with that
of her niece, Allie Brown, who is the child of Blanche's sister and a
grandchild of Katie Wilson. Said child is the daughter of an Indian by
blood, and her name also appears upon the blood rolls. In this connec-
tion it should be noted that the little girl is of mixed negro and Indian
blood. The case of her aunt, Blanche, appears to be fully as meritorious
as her own. It also appears that the case of Pernelia Brown, mother of
Allie, is precisely analogous to that of Blanche Wilson.
Number of claimants named in this memorandum, 3.
White (Christian name not known).
Choctaw by blood. Files: Memorandum of data obtained at Hugo,
November 12, 1908, Part I, Exhibit F, report March 3, 1909. Mr.
Peter Hudson and Mr. Charles Knapp, special Choctaw delegate and
United States district Indian agent, respectively, state that there is a
man named White residing near Stanley, Okla., who is enrolled as a
Choctaw freedman, but claims to be an Indian by blood. He refuses to
accept a freedman allotment.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
WoFFARD, Jack.
Cherokee by blood. Files: See records of Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes, this information having been obtained from Mr. John
Rosson, who is employe<l therein. This claimant is one-fourth blood
Cherokee. Post office, Tahlequah, Okla. He is a son of Than Woflfard, a
half-blood Cherokee, whose name appears on the final approved Cherokee
roll opposite No. 18502. Jack Woffard shows his Indian blood and speaks
the Cherokee language fluently. He has acte*! ns Cherokee Interpreter
for the Dawes Commission.
Number of claimants, 1.
WotFE, Che-Ko-Na-La. (Minor.)
Cherokee by blood. Files: Cherokee N. B. 3872, records of Commis-
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Application was made for the enroll-
ment of this child under the act of April 26, 190C. It is a full-blood
Cherokee of parents who belong to the Knight Hnwk Band, who opposed
enrollment and refused to give any information in regard to the cliildren
or to apply for their enrollment. As the time for closing the rolls drew
near the application of this child had to be rejected for lack of infor-
mation.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
WoiJE, Jim. Talala, Okla.
Cherokee by blood. Files: Report of November 15, 1907, from Com-
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Case No. 10001. This applicant,
who is a full-blood Indian, made application for enrollment November
20, 1900, as a citizen by blood of the Cherokee Nation, his age being given
at that time as 41 years. June 20, 1901, the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes refused his application for enrollment in accordance
with the provisions of the act of May 31, 1900 (31 Stat, 221), and on
September 24, 1901, said decision was approved by the department. -On
November 27. lOaS (I. T. D., 8304-1003), on request of the commission,
the department rescinded its decision and returned the case for readjudi-
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 enrolled as a citizen of the Cherokee Na-
tion of Shawnee blood. The attorney for the Cherokee Nation entered no
protest against the enrollment of Jim Wolfe, but through inadvertence his
name was not placed upon a schedule of Cherokee citizens and forwarded
to the department for approval.
Number of claimants in this memorandum. 1.
Wood, Jim.
Choctaw by blood. Files: Memorandum made at otfice of district
Indian agent, Antlers, Okla., November 13. 1908. Part I, Exhibit F,
report March 3, 1909. Mr. Peter Hudson states that, according to his
best recollection. Wood is one-fourth blood Choctaw and three-fourths
blood negro; that he never was a slave; and that he resided with the
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
282 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Gboctaw people in MXmimipyi, Mr. Hudson also states that there appears
to 1)6 »ome que»tiou as to whether he was a slave, but that he has resided
with the Choctaw people a great many years both in Mtsslssippi and
in the Choctaw Nation. He has not received an allotment there as a
f reedman or Choctaw by blood. He claims to be an Indian and either has
refused or is very reluctant to accept any benefits as a freedman. It is
also stated that there is a record in this case with the Dawes Commis-
sion; that this man has been recognized by the tribal government as a
citizen of the Choctaw Nation; that he has exercised the duties of a
citizen; and that he iq)eak8 cmly the Choctaw language. His post ofl3ce
is Noah, Okla.
Number of claimants in this memorandum, 1.
Note. — Possibly a duplication of Anohwatubbe, James N.
WoBCESTEB, Mahie. (Miuor.)
Chickasaw by blood. Files: Memorandum of information obtained at
Atoka, Okla., November 10, 1908. (See Part I, Exhibit F, report March
3, 1909.) The memorandum is as follows: "Mr. Mills, district agent
at Atoka, in conversation with Mr. T. W. Kennedy, superintendent of
the national school at Frisco, Okla. (old Stonewall), states to-day that
there is a girl, aged about 10 years, named Mamie Worcester, who
failed to secure enrollment. Her father, L. D. Worcester, and mother*
Mattie L. Worcester, are both on the roll as full-blood Chickasaw
Indians. See census card. No. 100. Their roll numbers are 294 and 296.
It appears that the father lives at or near Wapanucka and the mother
near Bromide, Okla. They have separated and the father claims the
guardianship. The child Is with the mother and has a brother named
Simeon Worcester, whose name appears on the same roll and census
card. All are enrolled as full-blood Chlckasaws. Clearly no African
blood in this case."
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1.
Young, Fannie.
Cherokee by blood. Files: Report Acting Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes, January 13, 1910, addressed to Hon. J. George Wright.
Fannie Young, child of Clara E. Chambers, a Cherokee freedman. No
application of record.
Number of claimants In this memorandum, 1.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
283
STATEMENT OF FACTd COVEBING MEBITOBIOUS CASES SUB-
mTTEB FOB CONSIDEBATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDLAJT
AFFAIBS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE BY BALLINGEB &
LEE, WALTEB S. FIELD, W. B. JOHNSON, AND THOMAS NOBMAN,
ATTOBNEYS.
Note. — The following cases are submitted Irrespective of the fact that they
are in part covered by the preceding reports.
The following persons, mostly full-bloo<is, were before Judge Pol-
lock and should be covered by ms report to the committee.
Per;:K)ns whose names are set in are minors.
Addie Carter.
William O. Carter.
Lula C. Carter.
Margaret Carter.
S. D. Mitchell.
Paul and Mary Jessie.
Dosman Jessie.
Frank Battiest.
George Battiest.
Adam Bill.
Sillistine Battiest.
Lestie Battiest.
Annie John.
Pauline Williams.
John Jack.
Alline Jack.
Joe Battiest.
Lena Battiest.
Mary Jessie, wife.
Minnie Gardner.
Delia Lee Gardner.
Fannie Battiest.
Thompson Battiest.
Sillis Battiest.
Willis Isaac.
Ida Isaac.
Martin McDaniel.
Gust in and Emma Jessie.
Anderson Jessie.
Ada Jessie.
Nancy Isaac.
Joe Babtist.
T. B. Black.
Enoch Black.
Othella Black.
Frazine Babtist.
Ernest Jessie.
Winston Jessie.
Willie Jessie.
George Jessie.
Lucy Harris.
Levi Orpham.
Buster Orpham.
Rena Orpham.
Gilbert James.
Fannie Mirtle James.
Gilbert Arpealer.
Nicy Arpealer.
Sidney Arpealer.
Ida Myers.
Lula Myers.
Alex Myers.
Fred Myers.
Rula Myers.
David Martin et al.
Quincy E. Maddie, n^e Powell.
J. M. Martin.
Matilda Martin.
Anna Martin.
Lizzie Martin.
John Martin.
Walter Martin.
Andrew Martin.
Let a G. Bozeman, nee Nelson.
Lillie S. Nelson, mother of.
Alexander Dick.
Zeno Dick.
Helper Dick.
Sallie Jaclcson.
Lorin Wilson.
Peggie Coker.
Bertha Tucker.
Richard Tucker.
Dan Presley.
Julius Presley.
Willie Presley.
HuUecker Lewis.
Dixie Lewis.
Martha Colbert.
Ellen Homer.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
CLASS 1.
In the following cases thex*laimants had two findings in their favor,
having been admitted by the commission in 1896, and by the United
States court on appeal, but were denied by the citizenship court.
Anderson F. Cowling (Choctaw by Blood).
Dawes Commission, Xo. 741. United States court, Xo. 170, South
McAlester. Citizenship court, Xo. 98, MoAlester.
The name of claimant, Anderson F. Cowling, appears on the 1885
Choctaw census roll Sans Bois County, Choctaw Nation. His chU-
dren. John A. Cowling. A. D. Cowling, and Oramittie Cowling, are
enrolled on the finally approved roll of citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Xation opposite Nos. 1^963, 15964, and 15966, respectively.
They are enrolled by reason of their Choctaw blood derived from
their father, Anderson F. Cowling, the claimant herein. The testi-
money in this case is clear that claimant, Anderson F. Cowling, voted
in the elections, owned land as other Choctaw citizens, purchased
land at sheriff's sale, and held oflSce as deputy sheriff for several years.
That he held office is indicated by a certificate hereto attached:
RECORD.
September 7, 1896. Claimant made application for citizenship
in the Choctaw Xation under act of Congress of June 10, 1896, for
himself and his children as citizens by blood and for his wife, Caro-
line Cowling, as an intermarried citizen.
December 2, 1896. Commission rendered its decision admitting
Anderson F. Cowling as an intermarried citizen and his wife and
children as Choctaws by blood. Case appealed to United States
court, central district, Indian Territory, as to Anderson F. Cowling,
only.
September 11, 1807. Judgment in United States court entered ad-
mitting applicant, Anderson F. Cowling, as a citizen by blood of the
Choctaw Xation.
December 17, 1902. Judgment of the United States court vacated
by general decree of Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court in
" test case." Records subsequently certified to citizenship court for
trial de novo.
February 29, 1904. Citizenship court rendered a decree denying
claimant enrollment.
June 13, 1809. Application of Anderson F. Cowling made to com-
mission at Spiro, Ind. T., for enrollment of himself and children,
John A., A. D., and Oramittie Cowling, as citizens by blood and for
the enrollment of his wife, Caroline Cowling, as a citizen by inter-
marriage of Choctaw Xation.
284
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE C5IVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 285
June 22, 1905. Commission rendered decision admitting John A.,
A. D., and Oramittie Cowling, children of Anderson F. Cowling, as
citizens by blood, and Caroline Cowling, wife of Anderson F. Cow-
ling, as a citizen by intermarriage. Decision of commission vigor-
ously resisted by attorneys for the Nations, protests being filed before
both the Indian Office and the Secretary.
September 12, 1905. Decision of commission approved by Sec-
retary.
January 11, 1906. A petition was filed before commission praying
for a rehearing in this case.
April 5. 1906. Further proceedings were had and testimony taken
before the commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes and the com-
missioner held that this case did not come within the ruling of the
department in the Loula West case and for the reason that he had
never been prior to 1896 admitted or enrolled as a citizen by blood of
the Choctaw Nation or married to a citizen by blood of said nation
under Choctaw law.
May 7, 1906. Commissioner to Five Civilized Tribes rendered de-
cision denying application as a citizen by blood of Choctaw Nation
for the reason that he had never been enrolled by the Choctaw tribal
authorities or admitted to Choctaw citizenship by a duly constituted
court or committee of the Choctaw Nation. He was denied enroll-
ment as an intermarried citizen of the Choctaw Nation under the
ruling of the department in the McMenamin case for the reason that
he had not been married to a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation
under tribal law.
February 15, 1907. Department approved decision of commission.
It appears from the record that Caroline Cowling, the wife of the
applicant, is enrolled on the final approved roll of Choctaws by inter-
marriage opposite No. 1507 and tne children, John A., A. L)., and
Oramittie Cowling, the children of Anderson F. Cowling and wife,
Caroline Cowling, are enrolled upon the final approved roll of Choc-
taws by blood opposite Nos. 15963, 15964, and 15965, respectively.
Counsel for applicant respectfully represent that inasmuch as the
testimony shows that claimant is a Choctaw Indian by blood and
has resided in the Choctaw Nation, voted, held office, and owned land
, therein as a citizen, and his children by his wife, an intermarried
Choctaw, are enrolled as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation by
reason of his Indian blood and such enrollment was approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, the claimant herein is in equity and good
conscience entitled to enrollment as a Choctaw by blood. (Exhibits
attached.)
Entitled to enrollment: Anderson F. Cowling.
Respectfully submitted,
Ballinoer & Lee,
Counsel for Claimants.
(One in all)
CouwTY OF Sans Bois, Chocianc Nation,
To aU and sinffular to whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye, that I, J. S. Forrest, county Judge of Sans Bois County, Choctaw
Nation, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of said Nation,
do hereby grant unto Charles Tucker, a noncitlzen, a permit to remain In this
Digitized by V^OOQIC
286 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
Nation as a r^iter under tbe employ of A. F. Cowling during the year 1885*
with the right and privilege of conducting such business so long as said Gbarlea
Tucker shall obey the laws and regulations of the Choctaw Nation In regard to
noncitizens residing therein.
Given under my hand this 17th day of February, 3885.
[SEAL.] J. S. FOBRSST,
County Judffe of Sans Boi$ Oounty, C. N.
Attest:
J. Peabce Thompson,
County Clerk.
PERMIT.
Choctaw Nation, County of Sans Bois,
To aU and sinffular to whom these presents shaU come, greeting:
Know ye. that I, Solomon McGilberry, county judge of Sans Bois County,
Choctaw Nation, by virtue of authority vested In me by the laws of said Natioa.
do hereby grant unto Jim Hurd, a citizen of the United States, a permit to
remain in this nation as a renter under the employ of A. F. Cowling during
the year 1802, with the right and privilege of conducting such as long as the
said Jim Hurd shall obey the laws and regulations of said Choctaw Nation in
regard to noncitizens residing therein, not inconsistent with existing treaties
and laws of the United States relating thereto, not contrary to the rules and
regulations respecting and governing persons obtaining permits, and during
good behavior.
Given under my hand this 1st day of January, 1892.
[SEAL.] SOTX)MON McGlLBEBRT,
County Judge,
Attest :
Wallace Bond,
County Clerk.
PERMIT.
Choctaw Nation, County of Sans Bois.
To all and singular to whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye, that I, M. N. Cass, county judge of Sans Bols County. Choctaw
Nation, by virtue of the authority vested In me by the laws of said Nation, do
hereby grant unto J. B. York, a citizen of the United States, a permit to remain
in this Nation as a renter under the employ of A. F. Cowling during the year
1887, with the right and privilege of conducting such as long as the said J. B.
York shall obey the laws and regulations of said Choctaw Nation in regard to
noncitizens residing therein, not Inconsistent with existing treaties and laws of
the United States relating thereto, not contrary to the rules and regulations
respecting and governing persons obtaining permits, and during good behavior.
Given under my hand this 2d day of May, 1887.
[SEAL.l M. N. Cass, County Judge,
Attest:
M. Habrison, County Clerk pro tern.
This is to c»ertify that A. F. Cowling is appointed deputy sheriff of Sons Bois
County, Choctaw Nation, and he is hereby authorized to execute all orders
may lawfully come into his hand.
Given under my hand and seal this 2d day of August. A. D. 1889.
Lewis Lucrs,
Sheriff Sans Bois County, Choctaw Nation.
Skullvviixe CorNTY. Choctair y at ion:
Know all men by these presents that whereas A. F. Cowling, n citizen of the
Choctaw Nation, has this day petitioned, according to the form of the statutes
to the form of the sti
Digitized by VjOOv IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 287
in such c«8es mnde and provided, askini; that a permit be granted to Mr. Allen,
a cltlsen of the United States, to remain In his employ in the capacity of a
farmer for the year l»SfiO, and it api)enring from s»aid i)etition that the party
mentioned tlierein lias no more stock than is allowed noncltizens in the Choc-
taw Nation, and whereas said application has l>een duly jjranted by the
honorable connty judge of Skullyville Coimty:
Now, therefore, I, the undersigned county cleric of Skullyville County, by
virtue of the authority in me vested by the laws of the Choctaw Xation, and
in accordance with the above-mentioned njiplication. do this day hereby grant
unto the within mentioned Mr. Allen a permit to remain In the Choctaw Nation
and engage in the business of farming in the emi>loy of the aforesaid A. F.
Cowling: Provided, hotret-er. That nothing in the foregoing permit shall be so
coBfltrued as to prevent its being revoked by the proper authorities upon good
"and lawful cause duly shown.
Given under my hand and seal this 30th day of April. 1891.
[sEAL.l E. AV. Farnttm.
County Clerk of SkuJJyrWc Couvty, Choctaw Xation.
Frank P. Morgan, Intermarried Choctaw Citizen.
Dawes Commission, No. 380. United States Court, Xo. 123. Citi-
zenship Court, No. 115-M.
The name of this applicant appears upon the 1896 tribal roll, oppo-
site No. 14815.
record.
September 8, 1896. Application filed with the Dawes Commission
alleging that on the 27th day of October, 1876, he was a citizen of
the United States, a white man, and a resident of the Choctaw Na-
tion, but that on that day he was legally married to Mrs. Emily
Harlan, n^e Cochran.
Attached to the application is a. certificate of marriage showing
that the applicant was married to Emily Harlan in the Creek Nation,
Indian Territory, on October 27, 1897. This certificate is signed
" Theodore Hyatt, an ordained minister."
There is also attached the affidavit of S. A. Harlan, wherein it is
stated that the applicant married the. widow of affiant's stepson,
Buck Harlan, and that said widow's maiden name was Cochran, and
that she was a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
October 22, 1896. Answer of the Choctaw Nation filed.
December 2, 1896. Decision of the commission rendered in words
and figures as follows, to wit: "Admitted as an intermarried
citizen."
February 10, 1897. Appeal by applicant from action of Dawes
Commission to the United States court for the central district of the
Indian Territory.
June 22, 1897. The following report of»a master in chancery was
filed:
In the Ignited States Court for the Central District of the Indian Territory.
Frank P. Morgan. plalntlflP, v. Choctaw Nation, defendant.
BEPOBT OF SPECIAL MASTER IN CHANCERY.
This cnse was duly filed before the Dawes Commission September 8. 1896.
plaintiff claiming citizenship by virtue of intermarriage with a Choctaw woman.
The defendant answered, or pleaded, denying the jurls<llction and authority
of the Dawes Commission to hear and determine the cause and deji
f^s'efcf^c
288 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
legality of the rules and procedure of tbe Dawes Commission, and d^iying tliat
the evidence adduced was sufficient to establish the claim of plaintiff to citiz^i-
ship, and alleging that the evidence in this case does not show that the
plaintiff was married according to the Choctaw law, and therefore acquired
no rights In the Choctaw Nation.
The Dawes Commission gave judgment for defendant December 2, 1896, from
which plaintiff did not appeal; but the defendant under a mistake appealed
the case. Plaintiff has filed nothing in answer to defendant's appeal.
From the evidence adduced in the case I find that the plaintiff was married
on the 27th day of October. 1876, according to the laws of the United States,
to a recognized Choctaw woman by blood, but the evidence does not show where
said marriage was solemnized. There is no direct evidence to show whether
the defendant is a resident of the Choctaw Nation or not, but the inferoioe
from the evidence in the case is that he is a resident of the Choctaw Nation *
and has continuously resided in the Choctaw Nation ever since his said mar-
riage with said Choctaw woman. I also find from additional evidence filed
in the case since the judgment of the Dawes Commission that the plaintiff
has been duly and regularly enrolled by the Choctaw Nation as an intermar-
ried citizen of the Choctaw Nation,
Respectfully submitted this 22d day of June, 1897.
W. B. Rutherford.
Special Master in Chancery.
July 13, 1897. Judgment of the Unitied States court ordering en-
rollment of applicant. Certified copy hereto attached.
September 9, 1899. Appeared before the commission at South Mc-
Alester and was enrolled as a citizen by intermarriage in accordance
with the judgment of the Unitjed States court.
December 17, 1902. Decision of Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship
court setting aside and annulling judgment of United States court.
March 23, 1903. Papers transmitted to Choctaw-Chickasaw citi-
zenship court. Xo testimony taken in the^ citizenship court.
April 30, 1904. Opinion of citizenship court, by Judge Weaver,
holding that —
There was no evidence that the iiiarrlnge was '* under the sanction and au-
thority of the laws and customs of the Chotaw Nation/' as it appeard from the
record that the marriage took place in the Creek Nation.
Decree entered acc<ordingly.
April 13, 1900. Petition filexl for the enrollment of applicant
under the ruling of the department in the Lula West case. The peti-
tion stated that applicant's name appeared on the tribal roll of 1896.
August 6, 190C. Hearing before Commissioner to the Five Civil-
ized Tribes. Applicant testified that he had been recognized prior to
1896 by the tribal authorities: that he had voted in tribal elections,
and had permits signed by the county judge of the Choctaw Nation;
that he has one daughter enrolled as a citizen by blood of the Choc-
taw Nation ; that he never lived in the Creek Nation.
January 24, 1907. Decision of the commissioner holding that the
marriage was not perfom^d in accordance with the Choctaw laws
iind that the application should be denied.
March 4, 1907. Action of the commission approved by the Sexrre-
tary of the Interior.
STATEMENT OF COUNSEL.
It is respectfully submitted that the appeal taken by applicant by
mistake from a decision in his favor should have been dismissed by
the United States court and that the citizenship court had no juris-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CmLIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 289
diction. For many years after the marriage of applicant to his In-
dian wife he was recognized by the tribal officers as a citizen and was
placed upon the rolls as such, and that therefore he should have been
put upon the final rolls as made up by the Secretary.
Kespectfully submitted.
(One in all.)
Ballinger & Lee.
COPY OF OBDEB OF COUBT.
United States of Amebica, Indian Tebbitoby,
Central District, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on the
13th day of July, A. D. 1897.
Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Frank P. Morgan v. Choctaw Nation. No. 123.
JUDGMENT.
On this day this cause came on to be heard in open court, the same being the
13th day of July and one of the judicial days of the April, A. D. 1897, term of
court; both plaintiflf and defendant announced ready for trial; and the court
having heard the evidence and argument of counsel finds that the plaintiff is a
member and citizen of the Choctaw Nation by intermarriage, and the court
further finds that this plaintiff was by the duly constituted authorities of the
Choctaw Nation placed upon the last roll of the members and citizens of the
Choctaw Nation, and that his name now appears upon the last compiled roll of
said nation as a member and citizen of said nation by Intermarriage.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff,
Frank P. Morgan, is a member by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation, and
entitled to all the rights, privileges, Immunities, and benefits in said nation as
such Intermarried citizen and member.
It is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged by the court that the defendant,
Choctaw Nation, recognize said rights, privileges, benefits, and immunities to
their full extent, and recognize and treat said plaintiff, Frank P. Morgan, as
such member and citizen of the Choctaw Nation in all respects.
It is further orderedf adjudged, and decreed by the court that the clerk of
this court transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes, and that the said commission place the name of this
plaintiff, Frank P. Morgan, upon the rolls prepared or to be prepared by them
of the members and citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
It is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff,
Frank P. Morgan, have and recover of and from the defendant, Choctaw Nation,
all his costs herein laid out and expendeil, for all of which let execution issue.
United States of Amebica, Indian Tebbitoby,
District t 8s:
I, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the District Court of the United States for the cen-
tral district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
copy of an order made by said court on the 13th day of July, 1897, as appears
from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand at my office In South
McAlester, A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.] E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
By I. M. Dodge, Deputy.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certified
09282—18 ^19
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
290 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN. OKLAHOMA.
copy of a jnagineiit of the court dated Jnly 13, 1S97. In the aintter of the
enrollment of Frank 1*. Morgan as a nieniher of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. ANGfeLL,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Frances E. Husbands, Choctaw.
Dawes ConimissioiL No. 1358. United States court, Xo. 199. Citi-
zenship court, No. 130-T.
Frances E. Husbands, the principal applicant herein, was admitted
as a Choctaw Indian by blood, together with all her children and
grandchildren, by the Dawes Commission in 1896. Appeal was
taken from the decision of the commission to the United States court
in the case of Frances E. Husbands, claimant herein, only. The
judgment of the commission was confirmed by the United States
court and she was adjudged a citizen by blood of the Choctaw
Nation. The judgment of the United States court was vacated by
the decree of the citizenship court. AH of claimant's children and
grandchildren, as will hereafter appear, are enrolled on the finally
approved rolls of the Choctaw Nation as citizens by blood, deriving
their blood from their mother, Frances E. Husbands, who was not
enrolled, and who is the applicant herein.
record.
September 9, 1896. Original application filed for admission of
Frances E. Husbands and her children :
A. P. Mathews (son by first husband), T. J. Husbands; Mrs. N. H.
Taylor and her grandchildren, Frances G. Mathews, Florence S.
Blwaton, Steven A. Hail, W. B. Taylor, S. E. Taylor as citizens by
blood of the Choctaw Nation.
December 8, 1896. Commission rendered its decision admitting all
of said applicants as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. From
the decision of the conmiission appeal was taken to the United States
court, central district, Indian Territory, as to the principal appli-
cant, Frances E. Husbands, only. No appeal was taken as to the
other applicants.
January 18, 1898. Decree was entered in the United States court
decreeing Frances E. Husbands a citizen of the Choctaw Nation by
blood.
December 17, 1902. Decree of the United States court admitting
applicant, Frances E. Husbands, as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation
by blood vacated by decree of the citizenship court in "test case."
Record certifie^d to citizenship court for trial ae novo.
October 20, 1904. Decree of citizenship court denying claimant,
Frances E. Husbands, enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation
by blood. The record evidence shows that Frances E. Husbands is a
Oioctaw by blood, who came originally from Mississippi; that die
is the granddaughter of Frances Cobb, a full-blood Choctaw woman,
who married a white man by the name of Teel, and the daughter of
Digitized by V^OOQlC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 291
Susan Teel, who married a white man by the name of Benson ; and
that applicant has lived continuously in the Choctaw Nation since
1888.
It appears from the record that the following-named persons,
children and grandchildren of Frances E. Husbands, are enrolled on
the final approved rolls of the Choctaw Nation as citizens by blood,
all of whom claim their right to enrollment through her:
1G219, Nancy H. Taylor (daughter of applicant) ; 16220, Willie B.
Taylor; 16221, Sarah E. Taylor; 16222, Stephen A. Hale (grandson) ;
16223, Thomas J. Husbands (son); 16224, Johnie M. Husbands;
16225, James Alexander Husbands; 16226, Sarah Malissa Husbands;
15353, Frances Davenport (granddaughter) ; 15354, John Davenport;
15355, Clarence G. Davenport; 15356, Arthur Davenport; 15357,
Bobert Davenport ; 15358, Florence S. Davenport (granddaughter) ;
14359, Leslie Davenport; 15360, Ida Myrtle Davenport.
This is an illustration of the work of the citizenship court. Ap-
plicant, Frances E. Husbands, was enrolled by the commission in
1896, by judgment of the United States court in 1898, and rejected
by the citizenship court. Her children and grandchildren were en-
rolled by the commission because of her blood, and their enroll-
ment was approved by the Secretary. They are thus citizens of the
Choctaw Nation and have received their property rights, while the
mother, from whom they all derived their rights, is barred by reason
of a decision of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court. Such
discrimination is unconscionable and can not be condoned. The ap-
plicant, Frances E. Husbands, is entitled to enrollment.
(One in all.)
[Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
No. 22.
Emily J. Zumavalt et al.
Commission, No. 1164. United States Court. No. 233. Citizenship
Court, No. 106-M.
September 8, 1896. Original application filed by Emily J. Zum-
walt for the enrollment of herself, her husband, Nathan B. Zumwalt,
her niece, Amanda A. Zumwalt, and her brother, James H. Whitney,
as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
December 7, 1896. The commission admitted Nathan B. Zumwalt
as an intermarried Choctaw citizen, and Emily J. Zumwalt, Amanda
A. Zumwalt, and James H. Whitney as citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Nation. From this decision an appeal was taken to the
United States Court for the Central District of Indian Territory at
McAlester. In her deposition the principal applicant states that she
is the granddaughter of Wade AVnitney and Susan Whitney, who
lived in Mississippi, and who afterwards came to the Choctaw Na-
tion, Indian Territory, and that Susan Whitney was a full-blood
Choctaw Indian; that applicant's father was William Whitney, a
full-blood Choctaw ; that her mother came from Mississippi ; that she
was born near Doaksville, Choctaw Nation, and lived in the Indian
Digitized by V^OOQIC
292 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Territory nearly all her life ; that in 1872 she was married in Sher-
man, Tex., under a Texas license, to Nathan B. Zumwalt, and about
9 or 10 months thereafter moved to the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nations, where she has since lived continuously.
October 25, 1897. United States court rendered judgment ad-
mitting Emily J. Zumwalt, James H. Whitney, and Amanda A. Zum-
walt to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation as citizens by blood ; and
holding that Nathan B. Zumwalt is not a Choctaw citizen, and that
his name be excluded from said rolls. Certified copy of the court's
judgment is attached hereto and marked " Exhibit A. '
December 17, 1902. Decree of citizenship court vacating judgment
of United States court in test case.
March 16, 1903. Petition for appeal before the citizenship court
by Emily J. Zumwalt, Amanda A. Anderson, n6e Zumwalt, and
James H. Whitney. No appeal was taken by Nathan B. Zumwalt
The case was heard on the testimony taken before the commission
and the United States court, and no additional testimony taken.
March term, 1904. Opinion by citizenship court denying claimants
enrollment.
March 21, 1904. Decree of citizenship court denying claimants
enrollment.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that all of said claimants
included in the finding of the commission, and affirmed by the judg-
ment of the United States court, are Choctaw Indians by blood,
that there is no evidence to the contrary in the record, and that they
are entitled to enrollment as such. They are :
Emily J. Zumwalt, Amanda A. Anderson, n^e Zumwalt, James H.
Whitney.
Respectfully submitted.
BaLLINGER & LiEE.
(Three in all.)
United States of America,
Indian Territory, Central District, 88 :
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on
the 25th day of August A. D. 1897. Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton,
judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Emily H. Zumwalt et al. v. Choctaw Nation. No. 233.
JUDGMENT.
This cause came on to be heard on this 25th day of August, 1897, in open
court, whereupon both plaintiffs and defendant announced ready for trial, and
the court having heard the evidence in the cause and argument of counseU
and the same being submitted to the court for judgment herein :
The court finds that the plaintiffs, Emily H. Zumwalt, a female 45 years old;
James H. Whitney, a male 48 years old; and Amanda A. Zumwalt, a female
12 years old, are all citizens and members of the Choctaw Tribe and Nati<Mi
of Indians by blood, and as such are entitled to all the rights, privileges, Immu-
nites, and benefits of citizens and meml>ers by blood of the Choctaw Nation
and Tribe of Indians. .
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 293
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiffs,
Emily J. Zuniwalt, James H. Whitney, and Amanda Zumwalt, and each of them,
be admitted to and granted all the rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits
of citizens by blood of the CJhoctaw Nation by blood, and that each of their names
be placed upon the rolls of members by blood of the Choctaw Nation by the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes; that Nathan B. Zumwalt is not a
Choctaw citizen, and that his name be excluded from said rolls.
It is further ordered that the clerk of this court transmit to the Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes a certified copy of the decree and Judgment in
this cause, and an order that said commission place the names of the above-
named plaintiffs upon the rolls as herein commanded.
It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiffs have and
recover of and from the defendant, the Choctaw Nation, all their costs herein
laid out and expended, for all of which let execution issue.
The within is a true copy from the record of an order made by said court
<Hi the 25th day of August, A. D. 1897.
[SEAL.] B. J. Fannin, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of
said tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
certified copy of the Judgment of the court on the 25th day of August, 1897, in
the matter of the enrollment of Emily H. Zumwalt et al. as members of the
Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes ^
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records,
James McPheteridge et al., William T. Sledge et al., Harriet
Gordon et al., Bose Tapp et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission: Nos. 547, 817, 1005, and 1398. United States
court : Central district, No. 229 ; southern district, Nos. 93 and 94.
Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court: Nos. 106-T, 108-T, and
127-T.
September 7, 1896. Original application to Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes under act of June 10, 1896, for citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation of James McPheteridge and Maud McPheter-
idge, Albert McPheteridge and his children as citizens by blood;
Lizzie McPheteridge, his wife, as an intermarried citizen.
October 9, 1896. Answer of Choctaw Nation filed.
December 2, 1896. Decision of commission admitting the persons
included in application.
February 2, 1897. Appeal taken by Choctaw Nation to United
State court, central district, case No. 229.
September 7, 1896. Original application to Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes under act or June 10, 1896, for citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation of William Sledge, Conza Sledge, his child,
citizens by blood; Mattie Sledge, his wire, citizen by intermarriage.
October 9, 1896. Answer of Choctaw Nation filed.
December 4, 1896. Decision of commission admitting all the per-
sons included in the application.
February 2, 1897. Appeal was taken by Chocliw Nation to United
Stales court, central aistrict, and oa<e consolidated with case of
James McPheteredge, No. 229. . ^^^.^
® ' , Digitized by VjOOQIc
294 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
October 8, 1897. Decree of United States court for central district
of Indian Territory affirming decision of commission trnd admitting
the persons included in the consolidated case.
])ecember 17, 1902. Decision of United States court vacated by
decree of Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court in the " test
case " of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations or Tribes of Indians
V, J. T. Riddle et al., and case appealed to Choctaw and Chickasaw
citizenship court for trial de novo.
September 7, 1896. Original applicatipn made to the Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes under act of June 10, 1896, for citizen-
ship in the Choctaw Nation of Harriet Gordon, William M. McPIiHt-
ridge, Jane McPhatridge (now Davenport), Florence McPhatridge
(now Lowrance), and George Gordon, citizens by blood. Answer
of Choctaw Nation filed.
December 5, 1896. Decision of commission denying the applicants
in this case. Appeal was taken to the United States court for ihe
southern district of Indian Territory.
January 30, 1898. Decree was entered by United States court in
case No. 93, decreeing Mrs. Gordon, Greorge McFatridge, Jan*;es
McFatridge, Florence McFatridge, William McFatridge, Jane Dav-
enport, George Gordon, all Choctaws by blood, residmg in Indian
Territory and entitled to be admitted and enrolled as members of
the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
March 3, 1899. Subsequent decree rendered by United States
court eliminating the name of George McFatridge from decree there-
tofore rendered in this case.
December 17, 1902. Decision of United States court for southern
district of Indian Territory vacated by decree of Choctaw^ and
Chickasaw citizenship court in the " test case." Appeal was taken
and the case transferred to the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court
for trial de novo.
September 9, 1896. Original application made to Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes under act of June 10, 1896, for citizenship
in the Choctaw Nation of Perry S. Tapp, intermarried citizen ; Rose
Tapp, his wife; Albert Tapp; Oney Tapp, children, citizens by
blood. Answer of the Choctaw Nation was filed.
December 8, 1896. Commission rendered decision denying all the
applicants. Appeal was taken to the United States court for the
southern district of Indian Territory.
January 20, 1898. Decree rendered by United States court admit-
ting Mrs. Rose Tapp, Albert Tapp, Oney Tapp as citizens by blood,
but does not indicate any action upon the application of ^erry L.
Tapp.
December 17, 1902. Decree of United States court vacated by de-
cree of the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court in the " test
case." Appeal was taken to the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship
court.
June 24, 1904. Proceedings before Choctaw and Chickasaw citi-
zenship court at Tishomingo, Ind. T., and a motion made that the
same testimony be made to apply in the cases of William Sledge et
al., No. 127; Harriet Gordon et al., No. 106; and Rose Tapp et al.,
No. 109, as they are identical. The motion was granted.
October 20, 1904. Decrees were rendered by Choctaw-Chickasaw
citizenship court in each of the above three cases denying the right of
Digitized by V^OOQIC
PIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 295
the following persons to enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation:
James McPhetridge, Eliza (Lizzie) McPhetridge, Maud McPhet-
ridge, Albert McPhetridge, William .Sledge, Mattie Sledge, Conza
Sledge, Harriet Gordon, James McFatridge, Florence Lowrance, Wil-
liam McFatridge, Jane Davenport, George Gordon, Rose Tapp, Al-
bert Tapp, Onley (Anley) Tapp.
It is established by the record that the claimants Harriet Gordon
and William Sledge are half brother and sister, both being the chil-
dren of Jane (Frazier) Frazer, who was the daughter of Thomas
Frazier, a Choctaw Indian; that they have resided in the Choctaw
and Chickasaw Nations for 20 or 25 years; that they are half brother
and half sister of Maggie F. Richerson, who is also the daughter of
Jane Frazier, and who, with her children and grandchildren, have
been enrolled upon the approved roll of citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Nation, as follows:
1428G, Richerson, Maggie F. : 14287, Richerson, Bertha Etta ; 14288,
Sanner, Willie; 14298, Sanner, Louis: 14290, Sanner, Jexse; 14291,
Sanner, Arie L.; 14292, Sanner, George; 14293, Richerson, John L.;
, 14294, Sanner, Lenna Etta; 14295, Sanner, Walter.
Applications were made to the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribe.*? for enrollment as citizens by blood and intermarriage of the
Choctaw Nation of the following persons: September 22, 1898: Har-
riet (jordon, William McFatridge, and George Gordon, citizens by
blood. September 22, 1898: James McFatridge, Eliza McFatridge,
intermarried, Maude McFatridge, Mvrtle AlcFatridge. May 24,
1900: Robert McFatridge. April 8, 1902: William Edward McFat-
ridge, citizens by blood. October 17, 1898 : Florence Lowrance. Jessie
Lowrance, citizens by blood, and Julius C. Davenport, born February
18, 1895. October IT, 1898: Jane Davenport, Hattie Davenport, and,
October 1, 1900, Eva May Davenport, citizens by blood. October 17,
1898, Rose Tapp and Oney Tapp, citizens by blood. October 21,
1898, William Sledge, Mattie Sledge, intemiarried, Conza Sledge,
Maggie Sledge; April 4, 1902, Anna Pearle Sledge, and, May 8, 1906,
Lewis Sledge, citizens by blood.
November 12, 1904. Commission entered orders dismissing the
applicants in the above cases who were not included in the decrees of
the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court for the reason that the
cases of the persons through whom those applicants claimed had been
adversely decided by said citizenship court.
Counsel for claimants respectfully represent that, the principal
claimants, Harriet Gordon and William Sledge, are the half brother
and half sister of Maggie F. Richerson, who is an enrolled citizen
by blood of the Choctaw Nation, her name appearing opposite No.
14286 upon said roll as approved by the Secretary, and that they
derive their Choctaw blood through the same ancestor as the said
Maggie F. Richerson; and the other claimants ai*e children and
grandchildren of the leading claimants; that they have lived in the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations 20 or 25 years, or during their life,
and counsel for claimants respectfully submit that the claimants
should be enrolled.
Those entitled to enrollment are :
James McFatridge, Maud McFatridge. Albert McFatridge, Eliza
McFatridge, William Sledge, Conza Sledge, Mattie Sledge, Harriet
Digitized by V^OOQIC
296 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Gordon, James McFatridge, Florence Lowrance, William McFat-
ridge, George Gordon, John Davenport, Rose Tapp, Albert Tapp,
Aney (or Only) Tapp.
Minor children for whose enrollment application was made within
the time provided by law :
Myrtle McFatridge, Robert McFatridge, William Edward McFat-
ridge, Jessie Lowrance, Hattie Davenport, Eva May Davenport,
Maggie Sledee, Anna Pearle Sledge, Lewis Sledge.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field.
Daniel Sledge et al.
Commission, No. Rr-278.
September, 1899. Original application to Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes for enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw Nation of
Daniel T. Sledge, and Mona Sledge, Leda R. Sledge, his children, as
citizens by blood ; Lula Sledge, his wife, as an intermarried citizen of
the Choctaw Nation.
March 30, 1905. Decision rendered by the commission denying the
application for the enrollment of the above-named claimants.
May 18, 1905. Decision of the commission was affirmed by the
department.
November 4, 1905. Motion for review filed with department.
January 30, 1906. Department held that its decision of May 18,
1905, was correct and denied applicant's petition for rehearing and
review. Applications were subsequently received by the Commis-
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes for the enrollment as citizens of
the Choctaw Nation under the act of Congress approved April 26,
1906, of the following children of Daniel T. Sledge: May 2, 1906,
Louolga Sledge and Harry G- Sledge; June 4, 1906, Daniel Oscar
Sledge.
February 14, 1907. Applications refused by decision of commis-
sioner of this date.
March 4, 1907. Department approved this action of the com-
mission.
The record in this case shows that the principal claimant is a full
brother of William Sledge, whose case has been fully s^t out; that
he had been residing in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for 10
years prior to June 28, 1898.
Wherefore counsel for claimants submit that they are entitled to
enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Those entitled to enrollment are: Daniel T. Sledge, Nona Sledge,
Leda R. Sledge.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field,
Attorney for Claimants.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 297
Abraham H. Nail et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission, No. 57-1896. United States Court, Central Dis-
trict, No. 84-McA. Citizenship court, No. 74-McA. Commission,
No. 131-1907.
The facts in this case as found by the United States Indian agent,
the Dawes Commission, and the United States court are :
Abraham H. Nail was a son of Rev. William Nail, a quarter-blood
Choctaw Indian and a missionary among the Choctaws and Chero-
kees in Bledsoe County, Tenn., where he lived and died. Abraham H.
Nail moved to the Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory, in 1874, and
was recognized by his relatives then living in the Choctaw Nation as
a Choctaw Indian. In the year 1875 he presented his claim and sub-
mitted his proof thereof to the Choctaw National Council and was
admitted to citizenship together with his family; that the act ad-
mitting him passed both houses and was not recorded ; that since that
time he and the members of his family have been recognized as citizens
of the Choctaw Nation by the authorities of said nation, with a few
exceptions; that in order to fully es^tablish his citizenship he again
applied to the Choctaw Council in 1888, and his claim was rejected
November 6, 1888 " for want of proper evidence, also on account of
being debarred by the laws of 1887 requiring all applications to be
filed within 60 days from its passage.-'
From the action of the Choctaw Council claimant appealed the
ca,se to the United States Indian agent under the provisions of the
act of the Choctaw Council approved October 21, 1882, known as Bill
No. 8. authorizing such appeals. The record before the council was
transmitted and additional evidence taken before the Indian agent.
In an opinion dated October 30, 1891, in which all the evidence is
carefully reviewed at length, Agent Leo. E. Bennett found that claim-
ants were entitled to admission to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation
and accordingly admitted them. In concluding his opinion the In-
dian agent says:
AUhongh the evidence submitted to the Choctaw Council in 1888 Was not
sufficient to prove, as In my opinion the additional evidence submitted on the
api)eal Is. that the claimant was admltteil to citizenship in 1875, It appears to
me that he at that time presented ample testimony to prove his Choctaw descent
aDd his right to citizenship in said nation.
From the recoixl of the proceedings of the Choctaw Council of 1888 it appears
that in many cases the law of 1887, requiring all claims for citizenship to be
filed within 60 days from the passage of the act, did not debar the claimant
from presenting his claim and receiving favorable action thereon, as in the case
of W. F. Foster and others whose claim was presented to the same councU,
and by an act ai)i>roved November 5. ISKS. was admitted to citizenship, as were
other claimants upon different dates, during the same term of council, from
which the Inference Is reasonable that the law of 1887 did not enter (except
sftasmodically) Into the consideration of claims to citizenship.
After a careful consideration of all the evidence submitted It Is my opinion
that Abraham H. Nail and his descendants are Choctaw Indians by blood, and
that the claimant and his wife, Matilda J. Nail, and his family, John Nail,
William Nail. James P. Nail, and Aaron L. Nail, should be admitted to partici-
pate in all the rights, privileges, and immunities of Choctaw citizenship.
September 9, 1896. Application made to the commission for the
admission to citizenship of Abraham H. Nail, Matilda J. Nail, John
Nail, Aaron L. Nail, James P. Nail, and Lizzie Nail, as citizens by
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
298 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
bJood of the Choctaw Nation, with the exception of Matilda J., who
claimed by intermarriage.
December 1, 1896. Commission rendered its decision admitting
claimants as prayed in their petition to (^itizenship in the Choctaw
Nation. Case appealed to the United States court, central district,
case No. 84; record before commission certified to said court; addi-
tional testimony taken; attorneys for nation present and examined
witnesses.
August 26, 1897. Judgment entered affirming the finding in all
respects of the commission, and directing the commission to enroll
claimants.
December 17, 1902. Judgments of commission and United States
court vacated by decree of the citizenship court in " test case." Case
thereafter certified to citizenship court for trial de novo.
April 18, 1904. Decree entered denying all claimants citizenship
in the Choctaw Nation.
June 25, 1906. Petition filed with commission in accordance with
the regulations of January 2, 1906, directing the commission to hear
all cases denied by the citizenship court where the claimants had
been admitted to citizenship in 'the nations prior to 1896, or whose
names were properly on the tribal rolls asking the enrollment of
claimants.
February 27, 1907. Commission renders decision holding that
under opinion of xVttorney General of Febniary 19, 1907, claimants
should be denied. The opinion of the Attorney General of February
19,1907, was misconstrued by the departmental officers as holding that
the decisions of the citizenship court were final; this erroneous con-
struction was corrected by an opinion of the Attorney General of
March 4, 1907, which did not reach the department until March 6,
after the rolls had been closed by operation of law, and too late to
permit the enrollment of claimants.
March 4, 1907. Secretary approved the decision of the commis-
sion.
STATEMENT BY rOl'NCIL.
In this case the applicants were admitted, first, by the Unite<l
States Indian agent; second, by the commissicHi in 1896; third, by
the United States court on appeal from the decision of the commis-
sion. They were denied by reason of a decision of the citizenship
court, and were in 1907 prevented from being enrolled by the de-
partment under an admittedly erroneous decision of the Attorney
General of February 19, 1907, which he subsequently modified, but
the modification occurred too late to permit the enrollment of
claimants.
Those entitled to enrollment are: Abraham H. Nail, John Nail,
Aaron L. Nail, James P. Nail, Lizzie Nail, as citizens by blood, and
Matilda J. Nail, by intermarriage.
(Six in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Fielix.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 299
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the apijllcntion for the enrollment of Abraham H. Nail et al.,
jis citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
It appears from the record herein that on October 21, 1898, application was
made to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of
Abraham H. Nail, John Nail, and Aaron L. Nail as citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Nation and for the enrollment of Matilda J. Nail, wife of Abraham H.
Nail, as a citizen by intermarriage of said nation; and that on the same day
application was made for the enrollment of James P. Nail as a citizen by blood
of the Choctaw Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife, Lizzie Nail, as a
citizen by intermarriage of said nation.
It appears from the records of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
that on September 9, 1896, in the case entitled "Abraham Nail et al. v. Choctaw
Nation'* (1896 Choctaw citizenship docket, case No. 57), original application
was made to said commission under the provisions of the act of Congress
approved Jnne 10. 1896 (29 Stats., 321), for the admission to citizenship In
the Choctaw Nation of the applicants, Abraham H. Nail, Matilda J. Nail,
John Nail, Aaron L. Nail. James P. Nail, and Lizzie Nail; and thnt on Decem-
ber 1, 1896, said commission rendered Its decision therein, admitting said ap-
plicants as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
From this decision an api)eal was taken to the United States court for the
central district of the Indian Terrltorj' (central district citizenship court case
No. 84). and on August 26, 1897, said court ndmltte<l Abraham H. Nail, John
Nail, James P. Nail, and Aaron L. Nail as citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, and Lizzie Nail and Matilda J. Nail as citizens by Intermarriage of
said nation.
December 17. 1902, the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, created
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats.,
641), **set aside, annulled, vacated, and held for naught" the aforesaid judg-
m^it of the I'nlted States court for the central district of Pndian Territory.
Thereafter said cause was certified to said Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship
court for a trial de novo, and on April 18, 1904, in the case entitled "Abraham
H. Nail et al. r. Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations" (Choctaw-Chickasaw citi-
zenship court, case No. 74, McAlester docket), rendered Its decision therein*
wherein It was "ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petition of the
plaintiffs, Abraham H. Nail. Matilda J. Nail. John Nail. James P. Nail, Aaron
L. Nail, and Lizzie Nail, be denied and that they be declared not citizens of the
Choctaw Nation and not entitled to enrollment as such citizens and not entitled
to any rights wliatever flowing therefrom."
Under the regulations adopted by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes January 2, 1906, there was filed on June 25, 1906, a petition praying
for the enrollment of the applicants herein as citizens of the Choctaw Nation,
said petition alleging that the applicants had prior to 1896 been admitted to
citiai«isbip in the Choctaw Nation by a decision of the United States Indian
agent.
The record In this case shows that on October 30, 1891. I^eo E. Bennett*
United States Indian agent. Union Agency. Muskogee. Ind. T., on appeal firom
the adverse decision of the Choctaw National Council, under the provisions of
an act of said council approved October 21. 1882, admitted tlie applicants,
Abraham H. Nail. John Nail, Aaron L. Nail, and James P. Nail, as citizens by
blood of the Choctaw Nation, and Matilda J. Nail as a citizen by Intermarriage
of said nation.
The applicant, T^lzzle Nail, was on December 2^, 1885, under the laws of the
State of Texas, lawfully married to James P. Nail, both of said persons being
on the date of said marriage residents in good faith of the Choctaw-Chickasaw
conntry.
All of the applicants herein were residents In good faith of the Indian Ter-
ritory on June 28, 1898.
None of the applicants herein are identified upon any of the tribal rolls of
the Choctaw Nation In the possession of this office.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
300 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
I am of the opinion that in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney
General for the United States dated February 19, 1907, In the matter of cer-
tain citizenship cases referred to him for consideration by the Secretary of
the Interior, the application for the enrollment of Abraham H. Nail, John Nall»
Aaron L. Nail, and James P. Nail as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation
and the petition herein in so far as same applies to said applicants should be
denied under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902
(32 Stats., 641), and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the application for the enrollment of
Matilda J. Nail and Lizzie Nail as citizens by Intermarriage of the Choctaw
Nation and the petition herein in so far as same applies to said applicants
should be denied under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1,
1902 (32 Stats., 641), and It Is so ordered.
Tams Bixby, Commissioner.
Muskogee, Ind. T., February 27, 1907.
William T. Stephens.
Dawes Commission, No. — . United States court (Central district),
No. 280. Citizenship court No. — .
The record in this case shows :
Claimant applied to Dawes Commission in 1896 for enrollment as
a citizen of the Choctaw Nation by intermarriage, basing his claim
upon a decision of the United States Indian agent, Robert L. Owen,
rendered August 16, 1887, holding him to be a citizen by intermar-
riage of the Choctaw Nation, copy of which decision is hereto attached
and marked Exhibit I.
The decision of the United States agent was aflSrmed by Secretary
of the Interior Lamar and thereby became final.
Dawes Commission enrolled claimant under act of June 10, 1896,
as a member of the tribe.
Choctaw Nation appealed from decision of commission to United
States court for the central district of Indian Territory, which
court, on July 13, 1897, rendered judgment affirming the decision of
the commission enrolling claimant.
Case thereafter was transmitted to the citizenship court, which
under the law had no jurisdiction thereof, as that court only had
appellate jurisdiction of cases passed on by the United States courts
where there had been no previous tribal enrollment. The citizenship
c^rt, by decision rendered October 20, 1904, entered Judgment deny-
ing applicant citizenship in the nation. As the citizenship court
was without jurisdiction of this case, as held by the Assistant Attor-
ney General m the case of Lula West, the judgment entered by that
court did not and could not deprive applicant of his right to
enrollment.
Applicant died in January, 1903, and his heirs are under the law
entitled to receive his share of the estate. His name should be
included on the final rolls of the tribe.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 301
Depabtment of the Interior,
United States Indian Service,
Muscogee, Union Agency y Ind. T., Novemher 25, 1896.
Mr. W. T. Stephens,
JdcAleater, Ind. T.
Sir : Below you will find a true copy of Agent Owen*8 decision In your claim
to Choctaw citizenship. This decision was made August 16, 1887.
Very respectfully,
D. M. WiNDOM,
United States Indian Agent.
W. F. W.
Choctaw Nation r. William T. Stephens.
On the 17th of November. 1884, William T. Stephens applied to this office
against the decision of the Choctaw council in the matter of his citizenship.
It appears that he married Catherine Wall, a Choctaw woman, March 2,
1858, and lived with her until 1868, when he obtained a divorce on the plea of
her desertion. Two children were born to them as the issue of this marriage.
On October 2, 1860, he married a white woman. It appears further that he
was uniformly recognized as a citizen until perhaps 1882. The burden of proof
is therefore upon the Choctaw Nation. (
Upon the facts averred, William T. Stephens is entitled to citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation and has not forfeited the same by hfs marriage with the
white woman in 1869, said marriage being prior to the law of November 9, 1875,
relative to intermarried white men. His children by the first marriage are
citizens of the Choctaw Nation by blood; his children by the second wife are
United States citizens without the rights of Choctaw Indians, in my opinion,
fbr while Mr. Stephens himself has acquired certain privileges by his inter-
marriage with Catherine Wall, his white descendants and other relations of
pure white blood have not acquired thereby any right whatever. The law of
1875 does not apply to Stephens, because such operation of the law would be
ex post facto, and in violation of the Choctaw constitution and of the Consti-
tution of the United States. I am of opinion that the temporary residence of
the petitioner in Arkansas for the brief period named was not such as to
deprive him of the right of residence and of adopted citizenship in the
Choctaw country, as he soon returned and has continuously lived there since.
CLASS 2.
ViKOiNiA Savage et al., Ckickasaws.
Virginia Savage and her children. This case is fully covered in
"Hearings before Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Repre-
sentatives,* Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, on H. E. 19279,"
pages 33 to 39, inclusive. Also favorably reported upon in the
Howell report.
Those entitled to enrollment are : Virginia Savage, James L. Sav-
age, David L. Ravage, Sarah Virginia Savage, Melvin F. Savage,
Earl V. Savage, Ernest V. Savage, Omer Savage, Sylvia O. Savage,
Mable F. Savage.
The contract of employment in this case is held by Fred Kincaid,
of Ardmore, Okla.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
CLASS 3.
The Lula West case and cases coming under the ruling in that case.
Digitized by V^QOQ IC
302 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
F. K. West et ai^
Dawes Commission No. 955. United States Court No. 226. Citi-
zenship court No. 42.
September 9, 1896. Original application submitted to the com-
mission for the enrolhnent of Frank K. West as an intermarried
citizen of the Choctaw Tribe, and 29 others, all claiming citizenship
in the Choctaw Nation by adoption, blood, or intermarriage. Ac-
companying the application is the affidavit of Charles L. Shockley,
gon of John Shockley, through whom all of said applicants claim,
setting out the blood^ relationship, residence, and tribal recognition
of the claimants. There is attached to the application and made a
part thereof a decision of United States Indian Agent Leo E. Ben-
nett, rendered July 15, 1889, approved by the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs January 29, 1890, and by the Secretary of the In-
terior on the same day, admitting to citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation, John Shockley and his family, to wit, Mar>^ L. Shockley,
his wife, and their seven children, as follows: William Shocklev,
Elzora Shockley, Charles L. Shockley, Ephraim Shockley, Lula
Shockley, Albert or Robert Shocklev, and Clayton Shockley. The
Indian agent states in his opinion that B. F. Smallwood, principal
chief of the Choctaw Nation, requested him to give careful considera-
tion to the case, as he '' believed the same to be a bona fide citizen of
our nation."
October 7, 1896. The Choctaw Nation, by its attorneys, Stuart,
Gordon & Hailey, made answer to said petition, stating:
There Is no evidence to show that this claim has ever been disputed by the
Choctaw Nation.
Other documentary evidence is filed with the petition, showing
the rights of each of the claimants, their names appearing on the
1893 roll, and that they drew leased-district money.
December 5, 1896. The commission rendered its' decision admitting
Frank K. West, Ava Shockley, Callie Shockley, and Elzora Shockley
as citizens of the Choctaw Nation by intermarriage, and Mattie L.
Shocklev, Charles L. Shockley, Ephraim Shockley, Eddie Shockley,
Lula West, Albert Shockley, Roy West, Marie West, Mattie Shock-
ley, Leverett Shockley, Alwrt Shockley, jr., and Ethel, Jforah, and
Frank Shockley as citizens by blood, and rejected all other applicants.
February 2, 1897. Appeal was filed by claimants in the United
States Court for the Central District of Indian Territory, and the
record before the Dawes Commission transmitted to that court. Ad-
ditional evidence was taken, consisting of the depositions of Ephraim
Shockley, Frank K. West, Charles L. Shockley, A. Telle, formerly
national secretary of the Choctaw Nation, and others, which fully
establish the blood, residence, and tribal recognition of 18 of the
claimants, all of whom had been admitted by the commission.
August 30, 1897. A decree was entered admitting Ava Shocklev,
Callie Shockley, Adzara Shockley, or Elzora Shockley, and Mattie ti.
Shockley " as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians and citizens
of the Choctaw Nation by intermarriage, and Charles L. Shockley,
Ephraim E. Shocklev, Eddie Shocklev or Ephraim Shocklev, Lulu
West, Albert Shockley, Roy West, Marie West, Mattie Shockley,
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE C3IVILIZED TRIBES IN. OKLAHOMA. 803
Leverett Shockley, Albert P. Shockley. Ethel Shockley, Norah
Shockley, and Albert R. Shockley as members of said tribe and citi-
zens of said nation by blood," and denying all other applicants.
December 17, 1902. The decision of the Dawes Commission and
decree of the ITnited States court admitting claimants were vacated
by decree of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court.
March 9, 1903. Case transferred to citizenship court for trial
de novo.
June 20, 1903. Counsel for claimants filed in the citizenship court
a motion reading as follows :
Xow come the plaintiffs lierein and move the court to dismiss this cause from
the docket of this court without prejudice.
January 25, 1904. The following order was entered :
Order of court: On this Jauuarj' 25, 1004. this cause coming on to be heard
upon the motion to dismiss, filed by the plaintiffs, the same having heretofore
been submitted ujjon argument of counsel, and the court being well and suffi-
ciently advised in the premises, is of the opinion that the same should be
overruled, and it is so ordered.
March term, 1904, Walter L. Weaver handed down the opinion of
the court in this case, the salient portion of which is as follows:
After the decision by this court of the suit of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nations r. J. T. Riddle et al., commonly known as the Tet^t case, the plaintiffs
filed their petition in this court praying for an adjudication of their said cause
by this court in accordance with the statute therefor made and provided. Such
further proceedings were had in this court that said cause was regularly
assigned for hearing therein, and A. Eddleman, a practicing attorney lliing
at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory, and the attorney of record for the said
plaintiffs Jn this court, was duly notified of the day the said cause was assigned
for bearing, but neither the plaintiffs nor their attorney of record appeared at
the day set for the trial of said cause, nor at any other time, to present their
cause for hearing by this court, and failed to produce or offer any evidence
whatsoever In support of their claim. Nevertheless 1 have examined the record
of this proceeding, both before the Dawes Commission (the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes) and before tiie United States District Court for the Cen-
tral District of the Indian Territory, with a view to ascertaining whether or
not there is competent evidence contained therein to authorize a finding and
Judgment of this court sustaining the claims of the plaintiffs herein, but fail
to find sufficient evidence competent for that purpose.
I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to show by any
competent evidence produced in this court that they or any of them are entitled
to citizenship or enrollment as meml)ers of the Choctaw Nation.
Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
March 21. 1904. A decree was entered decreeing each of the claim-
ants not entitled to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, or to enroll-
ment as such, or to any rights whatever flowing therefrom.
As showing the procedure of the court in this case, counsel for
claimants attach hereto the affidavits of A. C. Cnice, A. Eddleman,
W. A. Ledbetter, and F. K. West.
December 24, 1904. A petition was forwarded to the President of
the United States requesting an investigation of the decision of
Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in the case of Lula West et al.
From the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General, dated February
10, 1905, it appears that in said petition all the facts presented to the
Dawes Commission and the United States court when said case was
before said tribunals were reviewed, togetlier with the action of the
citizenship court. She stated that the Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes admitted the justice of her claim to Choctaw citizenship.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
304 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
but deemed themselves precluded from considering it by the judg-
ment of the citizenship court, and she prayed an investigation of the
case by the department and an order to the Secretair of the Interior
that she be placed on the rolls if the allegations set forth in the peti-
tion were found to be true.
The petition was referred to the Department of the Interior for
the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General.
Februarj' 10, 1905, the Assistant^ Attorney General rendered an
opinion, concluding as follows:
The act of June 10, 1896, conflrmetl the tribal rolls, and under it the commis-
sion had no jurisdiction or power to eliminate, persons therefrom. In respect
to such persons already recognized as citizens on the tribal rolls they had no
power other than investigation and entry ui)on the roll by them to be prepared.
Such action was not a decision or admission of such applicant to citizenship, as
that status already existed. In her case, as the facts are stated, it existed by
virtue of her recognition and enrollment as a Choctaw by the Secretary of the
Interior Januai-y 9, 1890. That the connnission had no power to deny enroll-
ment of such an applicant was decided by the department May 21, 1903, in the
Choctaw case of Wiley Adams.
The United States court, under the act of 1896, supra, had in citizenship
cases no other jurisdiction than an appellate one, and from the very nature of
such jurisdiction obtained no jurisdiction by an attempted apiieal of a matter
wherein the original tribunal had no jurisdiction. My opinion was so expressed
in the recent Creek case of Mar>' C. Keifer (I. T. D., 5066, 1902; 6236, 1903).
It follows that the attempted appeal by the Choctaw Nation in the case here
under consideration, if the facts are as stated, vested no jurisdiction in the
court to which the a pineal was attemi)ted to be taken, and its judgment, being
essentially and neces^^^irily a nullity, the citizenship court itself obtained no
jurisdiction in the case by going through the form of annulling a judgment
that for total want of original jurisdiction had never any validity or operation.
I am therefore of the opinion that the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes have jurisdiction, upon the facts stated, to examine into the claimant's
case, and should adjudicate it upon its merits, regardless of any judgment of
the citizenship court.
April 21, 1905. Secretarv^ Hitchcock directed commission by wire
to suspend action on this case under the decision of the Assistant
Attorney Geneml of February 10, 1905, until motion for review of
said decision was acted upon. The order also ran to all other cases
of a similar nature.
By order of the President, on May 29, 1906, the Secretary of the
Interior transmitted to the Attorney General, for an opinion, the
case of Myrtie Randolph and her, brother, W. J. Thompson, which
presented a similar question to the one presented in the Lula West
case.
The commission considered the case of Lula West, and on March
19, 1906, rendered a decision holdins^ the following persons entitled
to enrollment : John E. Shockley, Lula West, Roy West, Marie West,
Corine West, Ephraim E. Shockley, Mattie Shockley, Leverett Shock-
ley, Elva May Shockley. Charles L. Shockley, Albert Shockley, Her-
man Shockley, Marie Shockley. Albert R. Shockley, and John P.
Shockley, as citizens by blood, and Mattie Osborne, Ava Shockley,
Callie Shockley, and Pauline Shockley. as citizens by intermarriage.
The names of the above claimants were placed on a schedule and
transmitted with the decision to the Secretary for his approval.
February 19. 1907. The Attorney General rendered an opinion
in the case of Myrtie Randolph and W. J. Thompson, referred to
him on May 29, 1906. which was construed by the Department as
holding that the decision of the citizenship court was a finality.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 305
February 26, 1907. The Secretary disapproved the schedule con-
taining the names of claimants.
March 4, 1907. The Attorney General rendered another opinion,
which reached the Department of the Interior March 6, and two
days after the roll had been closed bv operation of law, modifying
his opinion of February 19, 1907, under which latter opinion claim-
ants would have been entitled to enrollment. Those entitled to en-
rollment in this case are: John E. Shockley, Lula West, Eoy West,
l^larie West, Corine West. Ephriam E. Shockley, Mattie Shockley,
T-^verett Shockley, Elva May Shockley, Charles L. Shocklev, Albert
Shocldey, Herman Shockley, Mamie Shockley, Albert R. Shockley,
Albert P. Shockley, Mattie"^ Osborn, Ava Shockley, Gallic Shockley,
Pauline Shockley— 19 in all.
Kespectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Wm. E. Moore et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission No. 355. United States court No. 7. Citizen-
ship court No, 50. Commission No. 92.
RECORD.
September 8, 1896. Application was made to the commission for
the enrollment of Letha Ann Harper, Edgar Batt Harper, William
E. Moore, William Lenlord Moore, Lizzie Bell Moore, John Marshall
Moore. Abb Lewis Moore, Jackson Moore, Victoria Moore, Daisy
Deen Moore, Carl Debrah Moore, Anna Gertrude Moore, Maggie Ethel
Moore, as Choctaw Indians by blood. Applicants claim through
their father or grandfather, William McCager Moore, who was a
son of Nittuchachee, a chief of the Choctaw Nation in 1830, and one
of the fourteenth article reservees under the treaty of that year.
William McCager Moore had the following children : John M. Moore,
William E. Moore, I^etha T^ewis (Mrs. W^ E. Lewis n^ Moore).
William McCager Moore moved to and settled in the Choctaw
Nation near Culaohaha in 1874 or 1875, It appears from the testi-
mony of many Indian witnesses that William McCager Moore and
his children lived continuously in the Choctaw Nation, with the ex-
ception of brief intervals, and that all of the claimants herein were
bona fide residents of the Choctaw Nation in 1893, and have since
maintained such residence. They have held land, issued permits
to nonresidents, and exercised all the rights of admitted Choctaw
citizens. Some of their children were educated in Choctaw schools.
()n the roll of citizens of Su^r Loaf County, of the Choctaw Nation,
repared by Elam McCnrtain, S. W. Folsom, and Jefferson J. Mc-
Elroy, in 1896, appear the following names, opposite the following
numbers :
820. William E. Moore. I 823. Marshall Moore.
821. Leonard Moore. 824. Absolam Moore.
822. Lizzie Moore. I 825. Jackson Moore.
E
On the line immediately preceding the first of the above names
appear the words: "Rejected. Not admitted." There is a line
09282—13
-20 Digitized by V^OOgle
306 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
drawn through each name. There is no notation as to when nor by
whom nor by what authority this was done.
The record shows that in 1884 William McCager Moore applied to
the Choctaw council for the enrollment of himself and children; that
there were a large number of citizenship cases pending, and that no
action was taken upon his application ; that he was instructed to
return at the next council and his case would be acted upon.
The record shows that on the 6th day of November, 1884, the appli-
tiation of William M. Moore and his children was presented to the
Choctaw council and rejected. In 1895 Mrs. W. E. Lewis, sister of
William E. Moore and John M. Moore, applied to the Choctaw coun-
cil for the enrollment of herself and chilaren, and that she and her
children were duly admitted to citizenship.
Ill the record appears the following certificate of the enrollment
on the final approved rolls of the children of Mrs. W. E. I^wis:
Dkpartment or the Intkriob,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribics.
I, Tarns Bixby, chairniaii of the Commission to tlie Five Civilized Tribes, do
hereby certify that the names of Frank Lewis, Belle Lewis, Annie Lewis, Curtis
Lewis, Alice I^wis, Winnie I-^wis, and Wallls G. Lewis appear upon the
approved roll of the citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, opposite Noa
7986, 7987, 7988, 7989. 7990, 7991, and 7992, respectively, and that their enroU-
ment as such was approved by the Secretary of the Interior January 17, 1908.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of Nov«nber,
1903, at Muskogee, Ind. T.
Tams Bixby, Chaimutn.
Accompany the petition to the commission are a large number
of affidavits of Indian citizens testifying to the blood, descent, resi-
dence, and recognition of the clairiiants as Choctaw Indians, of which
tlie following is a sample:
■ Choctaw Nation, Wade County, Ind. T.
Before the undersigned notary public apt)eared Gilbert W. Thompson and,
after being sworn, says: " I- am 47 years of age and a resident of the Choctaw
Nation, and i)ost-offlce address is Tuskahoma, Ind. T., and that I am a Choctaw
Indian by blo#d, bom and raised in the Choctaw Nation. I am now holding my
first term of office of county judge of Wade County. I was Judge of Skullyville
County four years while I lived there. I was elected senator from Wade and
Cedar Counties the last election, the 5th day of August, 1896." Affiant further
stiites that about the year of 1873 or 1874 he attended the Masonic lodge at
Creenwood, Ark., and while there he met and became acquainted with William
McCager Moore, who was then living at or near Greenwood, Ark. "I heard that
he had recently come from Mississippi and had started to the Choctaw Nation
with his family. He told me he was an Indian. I noticed him particular. His
way and appearance and looks made me believe he was an Indian. About the
year of 1875 or 1876 I was going over In the State, and I again saw him in
Sugar I^af County, Ind. T., where he lived for several years, and I got
acquainted with his family, frequently stopping when passing. I got acquainted
with Mr. William McCager Moore's daughter, Letha Ann Moore, who in after
years married W. W. Harper. She had long, straight, black hair; her face
(physical api>earance) favored a Choctaw Indian race. The family has and was
regarded Choctaw Indians, her father, owning places, paying permits for renters
as other citizens. In the year of 1881 our chief, Jack F. McCurtaln, put out of
the nation the whites that was claiming to be citizens and a great number of
people that did not claim citizenship. I was one of his staff officers. The
chief had a talk with William McCager Moore In my presence, and he told him
< Moore) to say and pay permits for his renters and to come down to council
and he would help establish his right. His health now became bad, and he
lingered along and died in about 1885. I was present at the council of 1895
when Bettie A. lewis's (sister of Mrs. I>etha Ann Harper) citizenship was voted
on in the house and senate, and from what the members knew personally and
Digitized by V^OOQlC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 30Y
the evidence there was not a vote cast against her citizenship, and it was unani-
mously agreed upon." Affiant further states;: "From the above facts and a
nnm!)er of other circumstances I firmly believe that William McCager Moore's
family are Indians by blood and descent and justly entitled to citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation. I am not related nor of any kin and have no interest what-
ever in the claim of Letha Ann Harper nor none of the family, and I mal^e thl*s
affidavit juirely because I honestly believe in the justice of their rights that it
is due her.*'
G. W. Thompson.
Subscribed and sworn to this 26th day of August, 1896.
[SEAL.1 F. M. Fuller, Notary Public.
My commission expires February 13, 1900.
On November 7, 1903, Judge Gilbert Thompson appeared as a wit-
ness before the citizenship court and corroborated all the statements
in the above affidavit, going into minute detail. His testimony was
unshaken on crt)ss-examination. In the papers in the case appears
a letter signed by Gilbert W. Dukes, chief of the Choctaw Nation,
who was at one time attorney for applicants. The letter is as follows :
Talihina, Ind. T., July 11, 1897.
Mr. Joe Gardner.
McAlester, Ind. T.
Dear Joe : I write to Ask you to get you and Judge Stewart to give your con-
sent as attorneys for the Choctaw Nation to admit Victory Moore and her
children., wife of John Moore, deceased; William Moore, his wife and children;
I^ehta Harper's child, wife of W. W. Harper, who Is now dead. I Isnow the
evidence in their favor. They have been in the nation for 20 or 25 years.
1 am personally acquainted with the members of the Moore family; they are
brothers and sisters of Bettie A. I^wls, who was admitted by act of counsel
without a dlss^itlng vote. It is just and right to admit them. They are good,
poor Choctaws. I am getting well and will soon be ready for the fight. Keep
up the fire all along the line. I would not have missed going to court for
anything.
Your friend, G. W. Dukes.
On November 7, 1903, Gilbert W. Dukes appeared as a witness for
the claimants before the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court, his
testimony appearing on pages 45 to 56, and tCvStified as to the blood,
residence, and recognition of the claimants as Choctaws. Many other
Choctaw citizens, who made affidavit in 1896 in support of the appli-
cation before the commission, appeared before the citizenship court
and testified in behalf of the claimants.
December 2, 1896. The commission rendered a decision in words
and figures as follows, to wit: " Denied."
From this decision an appeal was taken to the United States court,
central district, Indian Territory, sitting at McAlester. The record
of the Dawes Commission was transferred to the court, additional
testimony taken, and on August 24, 1897, judgment w^as entered
admitting the following persons: William E. Moore, William L.
Moore, Lizzie Belle Moore, John Marshall Moore, Abb I^ewis Moore,
Jackson Moore, Daisy Dean Moore, Carl D. Moore, Anna (t. Moore,
Maggie E. Moore, Edgar B. Harper, Victory Moore, and Catherine
Moore.
(Certified copy of judgment hereto attached, marked '* Exhibit A."
December 17, 1902. Judgment of the United States court vacated
by decree of the citizenship court in test case.
March 13, 1903. Case certified to citizenship court for trial de
novo; record certified to citizenship court; much additional testimony
taken by claimants; no testimony offered by nations.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
308 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
March 28, 1904. Decree entered denying all claimants.
March 2, 1906. Petition for the enrollment of claimants filed under
remilations adopted by the commission January 2, 1906.
June 9, 1906. Applications filed for the enrollment of the follow-
ing new-bom children: Teddy Moore, Ethel Moore, and John M.
Moore.
September 4, 1906. Hearing had in the office of the commission at
Muskogee. Claimants examined as to the appearance of their names
on the tribal rolls. On page 5 of the record of the commission, at the
hearing had at Muskogee, appears the following:
By Mr. Welch : Have tbe conmiission the county census rolls as prepared by
each county commission, census roll of 1896?
By the Commissioner: On the roll of citizens of Sugar Loaf County of the
Choctaw Nation appear the following names: William E. Moore, opposite No.
820; Leonard Moore, opposite No. 821; Lizzie Moore, opposite No. 822; Marshall
Moore, opposite No. 8^; Absolum Moore, opiioslte No. 824; Jackson Moore,
oi^)08ite No. 825.
Following the list of names among which the above names appear, appears the
following certificate :
"We do hereby certify these names in the enrollment book is a true and
correct list of citizens by blood."
Given under our hand and seal this 28th day of October, A. D. 1896.
Elam McCurtain,
S. W. FOLSOM,
Jefferson J. McElroy,
CommUsionerA,
The names of William E. Moore, Leonard Moore, Lizzie Moore, Marshall
Moore, Absolum Moore, and Jackson Moore appear to have been stricken from
said roll, a line having been drawn through each name.
February 23, 1907. The commission rendered a decision denying
the enrollment of claimants under the provisions of the act of July 1,
1902^ which was construed by the department as precluding the
consideration of any application by the commission of any person
whose name did not regularly appear upon the tribal rolls.
Literal copy of opinion of the commission hereto attached and
marked " Exhibit B.^
February 27, 1907. Record transniitted to department.
March 4, 1907. Decision of the commission pro forma approved
by Secretarv.
Counsel lor claimants respectfully submit that the following per-
sons are in law, equity, and good conscience entitled to enrollment.
Admitted by United States court in judgment of 1897: William E.
Moore, WiHiani L. Moore, Lizzie Belle Moore, John Marshall Moore,
Abb Lewis Moore, Jackson Moore, Daisy Deen Moore, Carl D. Moore,
Anna G. Moore, Maggie E. Moore, Edgar B. Harper, as citizens by
blood, and Victoria Sloore and Catherine Moore, as citizens by inter-
marriage, and the following persons for whose enrollment applica-
tion was made to the commission in 1898: Freda G. Moore, Eva
Moore, Dewey W. McMurtry, and for the following new - bom
children: Tiney Moore, Oluga Moore, Bulah Moore, David Moore,
Blanche McMuo'try, Ethel Moore, Teddy Moore, John William
McMurtry.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballixger & Lee.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
Fn^E CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 809
United States of America,
Indian Territory , central district, ss:
In the United States conrt In the Indian Territory, central district, at a term
thereof begnn and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on the
24th day of August, A. D. 1897; present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge
of said court.
The follow{;ig order was made and entered of record, to wit :
William E. Moore et al. v. Choctaw Nation. No. 7. Judgment
On this the 24th day of August, 1897, this cause coming on to be heard by
the court, and W. W. Wallls, Esq., appearing for the appellants, and Stewart,
Ctordon & Hailey, Esqrs., appearing for the appellees, and all parties having
announced ready for trial, and the pleadings and the evidence being submitted
to the court, and the court, being well and sufficiently advised in the premises,
lioth find that William E. Moore, William L. Moore, Lizzie Belle Moore, John
Marshall Moore, Abb Lewis Moore. Jackson Moore, Daisy Dean Moore, Carl
D. Moore, Anna G. Moore, Maggie E. Moore, and Edgar B. Harper are Choctaw
Indians by blood and reside In the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., and are entitled
to all the rights, privileges, benefits, and immunities of other Choctaw Indians
by blood. The court further finds that Victory Moore is the widow of John N.
Moore, deceased, who was a Choctaw Indian by blood, and as such widow she
Is entitled to all the rights, benefits, privileges, and Immunities as other citi-
zens of the Choctaw Nation by Intermarriage. The court further finds that
Catherine Moore is the wife of William E. Moore, who is a Choctaw Indian
by blood, and as such wife of an Indian she is entitled to be enrolled and have
all the rights, benefits, privileges, and immunities of other citizens of the
Choctaw Nation by intermarriage. That each of said intermarried citizens
last aforesaid reside In the Choctaw Nation. Ind. T. Therefore It Is ordered,
decreed, and adjudged by the court that the appellants herein, the said Wil-
liam R Moore, William L. Moore, Lizzie Belle Moore, John Marshall Moore,
Abb Lewis Moore, Jackson Moore, Daisy Dean Moore, Carl D. Moore, Anna
G. Moore* Maggie E. Moore, and Edgar B. Harper are Choctaw Indians by
blood and shall be enrolled as such and shall have all the rights, benefits,
privileges, and Immunities that other Choctaw Indians enjoy or are entitled to.
It Is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged by the court that Victory Moore
and Catherine Moore are Choctaw citizens by intermarriage, and as such shall
be enrolled and shall have and receive all the rights, benefits, privileges, and
immunities that other Choctaw citizens by intermarriage enjoy or are entitled
to. It is further ordered by the court that the clerk of this court transmit,
under his official hand and seal, to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes,
known as the Dawes Commission, a certified copy of this judgment, which
flhall operate as a mandate requiring the said commission to place the names
of the aforesaid parties on the rolls prepared, or to be prepared, of the citizens
of the Choctaw Nation.
It is farther ordered, decreed, and adjudged by the court that the judgment
heretofore rendered in this cause by the aforesaid commission be, and the same
18 hereby, reversed and held for naught, and that the appellants herein have and
recover of and from the Choctaw Nation all th^r costs expended in this behalf.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Cre^, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of the judgment of the court, dated August 24, 1907, on file in this office
hi the matter of the claim of William E. Moore et al. for enrollment as members
of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
Dated at Muskogee, Okla., this 17th day of October, 1910.
J. Geo. Wbioht,
Committsioner to the Five CiriHzed Tribes.
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in charge of Choctaw records.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
310 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
William E. Moore, Exhibit B.
Department of the Intebiob,
COMMISSIONEB TO THE FiVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of William E. Moore et al.
as citizens by bloo<l of the Choctaw Nation, ,
DECISION.
It appears from the record herein and from the records in the itossession of
the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes that application was made to the
Commission to Five Civilized Tribes at Wister, Ind. T., on June 6, 18W.
by William R Moore, for the enrollment of himself and his children, William
L. Moore, John M. Moore, Absolam L. Moore, and Jackson Moore, as citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation, sind for the enrollment of his wife, Catherine
Moore, as a citizen by intermarriage of said nation; that on June 23, 1900,
written application was filed for the enrollment of Freda (rertrude Moore,
minor child of William E. Moore and Catherine Moore, as a citizen by blood
of the Choctaw Nation; that on December 24, 1902, written application waa
filed for the enrollment of Eva Moore, minor daughter of I^eonard Moore and
Jessie L. Moore, as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation ; that on June 6,
1899, application was made to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes by
Lizzit McMurtry for the enrollment of herself and her minor son, Dewey W.
McMurtry, as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
It further api)enrs from the records in the possession of the Commissioner
to the Five Civiiiz^Hl Tribes that application was made to the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes on September 8. 1896, for admission to citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation, among others, of the applicants, William E. Moore, Wil-
liam L. Moore (as William I^nlord Moore). John M. Moore (as John Marshall
Moore). Absolam L. Moore (as Abb Lewis Moore), Jackson Moore, and Ldzsie
B. McMurtry (as Lizzie Bell Moore), and on December 2, 1896, said commission
denied said application.
From this decision of tlie commission an appeal was taken to the United
States court for the central district of Indian Territory, which court on August
24, 1897, reversed the decision of the commission and admitted said applleantt
as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. The Judgment of said court alsa
Included the name of Catherine Moore, and admitted said Catherine Moore as
a citizen by Intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation.
Said judgment was subsequently vacated, set aside, and held for naught by
a decree of the (^hoctaw-Chicknsaw citizenship court on December 17, 1902, In
the test case of Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations or Trlt>es v, J. T. Riddle ©t aL
Said cause was subsequently certified to the (^boctaw and Chickasaw cltlzea-
ship court, created under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1,
1902 (32 Stat., 641). for a trial de novo, and on March 28, 1904, In the case
of William E. Moore et al. v. (Choctaw and Chickasaw ^'atlons (Choctaw-
Chickasaw citizenship court case No. 68, South McAlester docket), said citizen-
ship court rendered a judgment therein wherein it was ** ordered, adjudged, and
decreed that the i)etltlon of the plaintiffs, William E. Moore, William L. Moore.
Lizzie Belle Moore (or IJzzle B. McMurtry), John Marshall Moore (or Marshall
J. Moore), Abb I^ewis Moore (or Absolam L. Moore). Jackson Moore, and
Catherine Moore (or Katherine Moore) be denied, and that they be declared not
citizens of the Choctaw Nation and not entitled to enrollment as such citizens
and not entitle<l to any rights whatever flowing therefrom."
On May 27, 1904. the <:k)mmi8sion to the Five Civilized Tribes issued orders
dismissing the application for the enrollment of Freda Gertrude Moore, E?a
Moore, and Dewey M. McMurtry as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation,
for the reason that the citizenship of the i)ersons through whom said applicants
claimed their right to enrollment had been adversely determined by the Choctaw-
Chickasaw citizenship court.
Under the regulations adopted by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes January 2, 1906, there was filed on March 2, 1906, a petition verified
by William E.* Moore, praying for the enrollment of William E. Moore. C!ath-
erlne R. Moore, Toney Moore, Jackson Moore, Freda G. Moore, I^eonard Moore,
Tiney MooreT Eva Moore. Bulah Moore. Marshall Moore. Oluga Moore. Da\id
Moore. Lizzie B. McMurtry, Wallace McMurtry. and Blanche McMurtry as citi-
zens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 311
The petitioners. Willlaiu E. McMjre. C^itherine R. Moore, Jackson Moore;
Freda (J. Moore, I>eonard Moore, Eva Moore, Marshall Moore, Lizzie B. McMur-
try, Wallace McMurtry, ami Toney Moore, are identical with the persons for
whose enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw Nation application was made
under the provisions of the act of Congress approvcMi July 1, 11)02. This office
has no record of any application ever having heen made for the enrollment of
the i>etitioners, Tiuey Moore, Rulah Moore, Olu^ ifoore, David Moore, and
Blanche McMurtry prior to December 1, 1JX)6.
On June 9, lOOG, applications were received for the eiiroliment of the follow-
ing persons as citizens by blood of the ('ho<taw Nation under the provisions of
the act of Congress approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stat. 137) ; Teddie Moore, bom
January 24, 1905, minor daughter of William L. Moore and Jessie L. Moore;
Ethel Moore, born August 2, 1905, minor daughter of John M. Moore and Olga
Moore; John William McMurtiy, born January 25. 1905, minor scm of Allen
McMurtry and I<.lzzie B. McMurtry.
The i)etitioners base their claim to a right to enrollment as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation upon the allegation that the names of certain of the petitioners
were placed on the 1896 (^hoctaw census roll.
It does not appear from the record herein or from the records in the posses-
sion of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes that any of the petltionerB
have ever been recognized as citizens of the Choctaw Nation by any duly
constituted authority. Their names do not appear upon any of the authentic
rolls of citizens of the Choctaw Nation In the iiossesslon of the Commissioner
to the Five Civilized Tribes.
There is, however, in the i)os9ession of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes a roll of citizens of Sugar Loaf County of the Choctaw Nation, prepared
by Elum McCurtaIn, S. W. Folsom, and Jefferson J. McElroy. The names of
certain of the petitioners appear on said roll, as follows: William R. Moore
opposite No. 820, T-.eonard Moore opposite No. 821, Lizzie Moore opposite No. 822^
Marshall Moore opposite 823, Absolam Moore opiioslte No. 824, and Jaelcson
Moore, opposite No. 825.
On the line immediately preceding the first of the al)ove names and In
apparently the same handwriting appear the words ** Rejected, not admitted."
Said names were stricken from this roll, a line being drawn through each name.
Following the list of names composing this roll, and among which the above
names appear, is the following eertlflcal^e:
** We hereby certify that these names In the enrollment book Is a true and
correct list of citizens by blood. (Jiven under our hand and seal this 20th day
of October, A. D. 1896.
rfiEAI^.1 *' BJLUM McCURTAlN,
[SBAL.j '* S. W. FOLSOM.
I SEAL. 1 ** J KFFER80N J . M C Et JlOV,
" Com mission rifi.'*
It is presumed that .said commissioners were api>olnte<l under the provisions
of the act of the Choctaw Council of September IS, 1S90. which provided for
the appointment of three commissioners In each county by the principal chief
for the purpose of preiMiring a roll of citizens of the several counties of the
Choctaw Nation, and the names of the petitioners herein were evidently stricken
from said roll by said commissioners. While this roll Is not Identical with the
memorandum roll transmitted to the department with this office letter of Sep-
tember 1, 1906, in the case of Nancy J. Murphy et al.. and returned by the
department with its letter of January 12, 1907 (L T. D., 1.^)978-1 9<X5), It ai)-
pears to have been prepared In a similar manner, and should be given no
more consideration than should said memorandum roll be given. This roll
has never been considered by this office as an authentic roll of the citizen^
of the Choctaw Nation, and It Is Immaterial to determine by whom and by
what authority the names of the applicants herein were stricken from said
roll.
It Is claimed that the api>ll<*flnt, William E. Moore, was a brother of Bettle A.
Lewis, deceased, who was admitted to citizenship in the (^octaw Nation by
an act of the Choctaw Council. Frank I>ewis. Belle liewis, Annie TiCwls. Curtis
I>ewis. Alice liCwIs, Winnie I^wls. and Wallls O. Lewis, children of Bettle A.
Iiewis. have been enrolled as citizens by blood of the Clioctaw Nation, and
tbeir names appear oo the final roll of citizens by bk)od of said nation opi)oslte
Nos. 7986, 7987, 7989, 7990, 7991, and 7992, req)ectively.
I am of the opinion that the record liereln falls to show that the applicants
have ever occupied such a status as would entitle them to enrollment as cltlzeim
Digitized by V^OOQIC
312 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
of the Choctaw Nation; that the action of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship
court of March 28, 1904, is final, and that the applications for the enrollment
of William E. Moore, William L. Moore, John M. Moore, Absolam L. Moore,
Jackson Moore, and Lizzie McMnrtry, and the petition herein In so far as same
applies to said applications should be denied under the provisions of the act
of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., 641), and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the application for the enrollment of
Catherine R. Moore as a citizen by Intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation and
the petition herein, In so far as same applies to said applicant, should be
denied under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32
Stats., 641), and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the petition herein In so far as same applies
to the petitioners Freda G. Moore, Eva Moore, and Dewey W. (or Wallace)
McMurtry, whose applications for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Clioc-
taw Nation have heretofore been dismissed by the Conmiission to the Five
Civilized Tribes, should be dismissed, and It is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the petition herein in so far as same applies
to the petitioners Tlney Moore and Oluga Moore, for whose enrollment as citi-
zens of the Choctaw Nation no application was made prior to December 1, 19C^,
should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the petition herein In so far as same applies
to the petitioners Bulah Moore, Davis Moore, and Blanche McMurtry should be
considered as an application for the enrollment of said petitioners as citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the act of Congress
approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stats., 137), that said application and the applica-
tions filed June 9. 1906, for enrollment of Ethel Moore, Teddle Moore, and
John William McMurtry should be denied under the provisions of the act of
Congress approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stats.. 137). and it is so ordered.
Tams Bixbt, Commiftsioncr.
Muskogee, Ind. T., February S3, 1907.
United States of America,
Indian Territory, Central District,
On this day comes Samuel Garland, who, being first duly sworn, on his oath
says : I am a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation ; my age Is 53 years ; my
post-office address Is Kully Chaha, Ind. T.
I knew William M. Moore during his lifetime. He came to the Choctaw
Nation in the year 1875 and settled near me. I sold him a claim which I
owned near Kully Chaha. Ind. T. Moore always claimed that he was a Choc-
taw citizen. My uncle Charley Dukes, who was a Choctaw Indian, told me
that Moore claimed to be a Choctaw.
I knew Bettle A. Moore, who was married to W. A. Lewis. I also know
William R Moore. William B. and Bettle A. Moore were the children of old
man William M. Moore.
William M. Moore lived on the place I sold him until his death, which oc-
curred in the year 1885.
Sam. a. Garland.
Sworn to before me this 29th day of August, 1906.
[SEAL.] Malcolm E. Ro'sser, Notary Puhlic,
Coi'NTY OF Sebastian, State of Arkansas, ss:
On this 25th day of August, 1906, personally a{H>eared before me, a notary
public within and for the county of Sebastian, State of Arkansas, duly com-
missioned and acting, D. Langford Plgg, who, being by me first duly sworn,
on his oath says: I am 79 years old; my post-office address Is Gre«iwood, Ark.;
I have lived at my present place of residence 19 years, and have lived in SebaS'
tian County, Ark., continuously since the year 1870.
I was well acquainted with William M. Moore and Mary E. M'oore; knew
them in Mississippi ; knew them both before their marriage ; they were married
In the year 1848.
William M. Moore was always looked upon in Mississippi as a Choctaw
Indian.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
PIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 813
William M. Moore and his family, together with myself and family, left
Mississippi in January of the year 1870, our objective point being the Choctaw
Nation. I located in Sebastian Ounty, Ark., and Moore stopped there for a
short while and finally settled in the Choctaw Nation, at what is now known
as KuUy Chaha, Ind. T. Said William M. Moore opened up a farm at that
place as a Choctaw citizen, and lived on the place he improved until his death,
which occurred in the year 1885.
I am personally acquainted with William E. Moore, and was personally ac-
quainted with Bettle A. Lewis (n4e Moore) during her lifetime; they were
both the children of William M. Moore and Mary K Moore. I knew William
K. and Bettle A. Moore all their lives, and know that they were full brother
and sister.
D. L. PiGG.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of August, 1906.
[SEAL] RoBEBT A. RowE, Notary Public.
My commission expires January 16, 1910. ^
United States of Amebioa,
Inditm Territory ^ Central District:
On this day comes Slllian Beard, who, being duly sworn, on her oath says:
I am a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation; my iage is 50 years; my post-
oflBce address is Poteau, Ind. T.
I was well acquainted with William M. Moore during his lifetime. He came
to the Choctaw Nation in the year 1875. and settled near Kully Chaha. Ind. T.
Said Moore opened up and cleared up a farm near Kully Chaha, and lived on
the said farm until his death, which occurred in the year 1885; said William M.
Moore and all his family were recognized as citizens of the Choctaw, and
exercised all the rights of citizens of the Choctaw Nation, such as taking up
lands, sending their children to the national schools of the Choctaw Nation,
securing permits for their noncltizen tenants, etc.
William E. Moore and Bettle A. Lewis n^e Moore, were children of said
William M. Moore, Bettle A. Moore was married to W. A. Lewis, she Is now
•dead ; William E. Moore is now living In the Choctaw Nation ; said William E.
Moore lived at Poteau for several years prior to the year 1896, and sent his
children to the national schools of the Choctaw Nation, and their tuition was
paid by the Choctaw authorities; said William E. Moore owned a portion of
what is now the townsite of Poteau, as a Choctaw citizen, and platted and
sold same as any other Choctaw citizen sold improvements; in fact said
William E. Moore has always been recognized as a Choctaw citizen since I
first knew him, in the year 1875.
Sillian Beabd.
Sworn to before me this 27th day of August. 1906.
[SEAL.] * Malcolm E. Rosseb, Notary PuUic,
My commission expires December 11, 1906.
Tnited States of Amebic a,
Indian Territory, Central District:
On this day comes James T. Reynolds, who, being duly sworn, on his oath
says: I am a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation; my age is 40 years; my
post-office address is Cameron, Ind. T.
I am well acquainted with William E. Moore, who Is applying for enrollment
as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation: I have been personally acquainted with
him for several years. The said Moore was always recognized as a Choctaw
citizen.
I was one of the clerks of election, Brazil precinct, at the time the Atoka
agreement was ratified by the Choctaw people. In the year 1897, and said
William E. Moore appeared at said Brazil precinct and voted at said election,
and his right to vote as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation was not questioned
when I Informed the election Judges who he was.
James T. Reynolds.
Sworh to before m^ this 29th day of August, 1906.
[SEAL.] Hosea S. Pilgbeen, Notary PuNic.
My commission expires December 9, 1907. Digitized by V^OOg IC
314 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Indian Territory. Southern District:
On tills (lay coniea Wesley \V. James, who beliiK by me first duly sworn, on
his oath suya: I jini a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation: my age Is 36
years; my post-office address is Tishomingo. Ind. T.
I am well acquainted with William K. Moore; I have known him practically
all my life; I was living at l*ote:m, Ind. T., in the yenr 18iW. nt the same time
said Moore lived there.
The Choctaw authorities made a census roll of all Choctaw citizens in the
year 1896; the commission w^ho made up said roll in Sugar I^^af (^.ounty was
located at and did their work at the Sugar Loaf County court ground: myself
and Ed. Walker and C. A. Welch, together with said William i:. Moore, went
from Poteaii out to the court ground for the purpose of enrolling: sjild Moore
and his family was enrolled as Choctaw citizens at that time.
Said William E. Moore and his family have always been recognized as citi-
zens of the Choctaw Nation. I knew the family about as far back as I can
remember.
W^ESLEY W. James.
Sworn to before me this 31st day of August, 11>08.
[SEAL.] I. F. Capsham.
My commission expires April 8. 1908.
United States of America,
Indian Tenitnry, Central District:
On this day comes Alice Fleming, who being first duly sworn, on her oath
^ays:
I am a United States citizen: my age Is 33 years; my p(»st-office address is
Wllburton, Ind. T. : I am a teacher by profession; I was teacher in the Wll-
burtou neighborhood school of the Choctaw Nation In the year 1002, at which
time ami place Tony Moore and Jack Moore, the children of William E. Moore,
attended my school as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, and they w^ere listed
with all the other Choctaw children and their tuition was paid by the Choctaw
Nation.
Ai ICE Fleming.
Sworn to before me this Ist day of September, 1906.
[SEAL.] Cliffobd V. Pebby, Notary Public.
My commission exi)ire« March 28. 1S)09.
United Statfs of America,
Indian Territory, Central District:
On this day comes Bud White, who being by me duly sworn, on his oath says:
I am a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation; my age. Is 43 years; my post-
office address Is Hartshorne. Ind. T.
I am well acquainted with William E. Moore. Said Moore has been recog-
nized as a citizen of tlie Choctaw Nation since I first knew him. At the gen-
eral election of the Choctaw Nation, held In August. 1902, said William E. Moore
appeared at the Hartshorne precinct of Gaines County. Chociaw Nation, and
voted at said elec*tion the same as any other Choctaw citizen. In the same year,
to wit, 1902, said William E. Moore was made a bond and was granted the
right to cut hay In said county of Gaines, Choctaw Nation, the same as all
other Chwtaw citizens. I was the sheriflP of (ialnes County nr the time.
BrD White.
Sworn to before me this 1st day of September, 1900.
[SEAL.] Samuel A. Maysey. Sotary Puhliv^
My commission expires 2d day of May, 1908.
United States of America,
Indian Territory, Central District:
On this day comes Louis Rockett, who, being by me duly sworn, on his oath
says: I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation by intermarriage; my age is 46
years; my iK)st-office address Is W'llburton, Ind. T. ; I am*well acquainted with
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 315
William E. Moore and his family. Said Moore and his family have been recog-
nized as citizens of the Choctaw Nation ever since I first knew them, in 1899.
I was local school trustee for the Choctaw Nation in the year 1901 and 1902,
at which time Tony and Jack Moore attended the Choctaw school of which
I was trustee, and their tuition was paid out of the Choctaw treasury by
authority of the Choctaw authorities.
IjOUis Rockett.
Sworn to before me this Ist day of September, 1906.
[SEAL.l Clifford V. Peery, Notary Public.
My commission expires March 28, 1909.
Napoleon B. Brashears et al.
Dawes Commission No. 877. Commission Nos. 7-D-195, 7-D-194,
7_D-187, 7-D-196, 2:^929.
On the 1896 census roll, placed there by the Choctaw revisory board,
which revisory board action was held legal by the department in the
case of W. C. Thompson, and following which ruling the conimis-
sion ordered enrolled parties to the Brown-Nichols, A. A. Spring,
and other similar cases, but in the Brashears case the commission
held that the evidence disclosed that the applicants were not of
Indian blood and that therefore their tribal enrollment was without
authority of law. But that the commission was in error as to this
question of fact is clearly shown by the following record:
RECORD.
September 8 and 9, 1896. Under three separate petitions, appli-
cations were filed with the Dawes Commission for the enrollment
as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation of the following-named
g arsons, applicants herein: Napoleon B. Brashears, La Fayette
ra.shears, Arthur Brashears, Fred S. Brashears, Sarah E. Salmon,
John C. Salmon, Forney Salmon, Lois Salmon, Ida May Duncan,
Dora M. Duncan, and for the enrollment of the following-named
ejrsons as intermarried citizens of the Choctaw Nation: Mary J.
ra shears and OUie Duncan.
The petitions state that the above-named pei^sons, except the first
named, are children and grandchildren of Napoleon B. Brashears,
and the petition of Napoleon B. Brashears states that he is entitled
to enrollment for the following reasons :
My father, Mortimer M. .Brashears, was a son of Joseph Brashears, whose
father was Zndoc Brashears. AU these Brashears were Choctaw Indhtns.
Attached to the petition is the joint affidavit of James D. Coyle
and Lucy J. Jones, who therein state that " Napoleon B. Brashears
is a son of Mortimer M. Brashears, and the said Joseph Brashears
was a son of Zadoc Brashears. The above-named Brashears were
Choctaw Indians."
October 22, 1896. Answer of the Choctaw Nation filed,
December 2, 4, and 8, 1896. Decisions of the commission in each
of the three cases in words and figures as follows, to wit: " Denied."
No appeal was taken from this decision.
January 6, 1897. A certificate issued showing that the names of
the above applicants were placed upon the 1896 tribal roll of the
Digitized by V^OOQIC
316 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Choctaw Nation by the Choctaw tribal commission, generally known
as the " Choctaw revisory board," which was authorized by the
Choctaw Council. Said roll contains the following names : Napoleon
B. Brashears, William Brashears, LaFayette Brashears, Arthur
Brashears, Logan Brashears, Fred Brashears, Ida Duncan, OUe
Duncan, Dora M. Duncan, Amanda Freeze, Damon Freeze, and Ray-
mond Freeze.
June 5, 1899. Application made to the Conmiission to the Five
Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of all the persons named in the
application of 1896, and in addition thereto for the enrollment of
Amanda J. Freeze, Damon Freeze, and Raymond Freeze, Amanda
Freeze being the daughter and Damon and Raymond being the
grandchildren of Napoleon B. Brashears.
October 6, 1899. Application was made to the commission for the
enrollment of Dora M. Duncan.
December 23, 1902. Application made for enrollment of Ruby
Freeze and Earl Freeze.
January 19 and February 6. 1905. In two separate decisions the
commission refused to enroll applicants, holding that the revisory
board had no authority to enroll applicants because of the action or
the commission in 1890 from which no appeal was taken, and for
the further reason that the revisory board had no legal existence.
July 17, 1905. The department returned the record in this case
to the commission with directions to permit the applicants to in-
troduce such testimony as might be necessary for a rull presentation
of the merits of their case in conformity with the approved opinion
of the assistant attorney general for the department of Jiuy 10,
1905, fr'om which opinion the following is' quoted:
There is not suflaclent evidence In the record for me to form an opinion upon
Brashears's right to be enrolled. Accepting the facts stated in his affidavit,
imdisputed by the nation after due service, I am of opinion that enough appears
to show that Brashears, in due time and in due form under the act of ISfift,
supra, asserted a right and was entitled to a hearing; that there has been a
miscarriage In the proceedings amounting In efTect to denial of a hearing, and
that a rehearing de novo should l>e ordered.
January 3, 1906. Hearing before the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes, at which hearing Napoleon B. Brashears was ques-
tioned as to his enrollment by the revisory board. He stated that
he appeared before the Choctaw revisory commissioners at Tuska-
homa on December 20, 1896; that at that time he had received no
notice of the action of the Dawes Commission, which had a few davs
previous thereto rejected his claim; that he had been before the
Choctaw census commissioners about two months prior to his ap-
B)arance before the revisory board and before the action of the
awes Commission and was told by the commissioners that a cer-
tificate would be issued him later ; that it would have to be drawn up
and signed b^ the national secretary ; that the national secretary did
subsequently issue the certificate which was offered in evidence.
The attorney for applicants then offered the testimony of a num-
ber of witnesses as to the merits of applicants' claim, which the
Conmiissioners of the Five Civilized Tribes refused to hear.
January 9, 1906. The Commissioner of the Five Civilized Tribes
transmitted the record back to the department with the recommenda-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 317
tion that the decision of the commission of January 9, 1905, adverse
to the applicants be affirmed.
April 6, 1906. Department returned the record to the commis-
sioner directing that all previous action be set aside, to the end that
a complete investigation of the merits of the case might be made.
May 9, 1906. Hearing before Commissioner to Five Civilized
Tribes ; Napoleon B. Brashears testified as follows : .
My age is 57. I came to the Choctaw Nation in 1858. I lived In the eastern
pert of the nation with my father, Mortimer Brashears, who is dead; he died
In August, 1863. I remained in the Choctaw Nation until the spring of 1861,
except for a short period of time during the year 1859. My father enlisted in
the United States Army and was killed. My grandfather was Joseph Brashears,
and his father was Zadoc Brashears. Zadoc Brashears was a Choctaw Indian.
My grandfather, Joseph Brashears, fame to the Choctaw Nation. Ind. T. My
mother's maiden name was Sarah Vaughn. I do not know whether she hud
Choctaw blood. I have been recognized by the officials of the Choctaw Nation
as a citizen. I enjoyed the privileges pursuing any and all avocations without
being molested. I have lived continuously in the nation since 1890. During
these years I have never been called upon to pay a permit. I held land, im-
proved and cultivated land, and afterward sold the improvements to a Choctaw
citizen. My grown sons voted with me in these elections. One of my daughters
married a noncltizen In the usual way as prescribed by the Choctaw law. They
were married as the Choctaw law prescribed between citizens and noncltlzens.
I held a greater number of cattle than any but a Choctaw could hold. Myself
and family were enrolled by the Choctaw Nation on the tribal roll. I have not
drawn money from the tr4be, and have not been allotted land. Choctaw clti-
Bims were required to pay royalties on hay cut on the public domain. I paid
such royalties. A noncitlzen was prohibited from cutting such hay. A citizen
oould do so by making bond. I made bond. A Choctaw county Judge approved
my bond In open court.
On cross-examination:
When my father came to the Indian Territory he was a trader and rented a
house to live in. I married in Arkansas but did not have a Ucense. I voted
In Pope County, Ark. I did not swear that I was a United States citizen. I
was not required to do so. I did not tell the election Judges that I was a
Ghoctaw. From 1872 to 1886 I lived in Arkansas and conducted myself as a
eltizen of the United Statea In 1886 I took a trip to Colorado, returning to
Ai^ansas same year, where I remained near to Fort Smith until 1890 when I
moved to Red Oak, Choctaw Nation, where I lived for four years and r^ted
a place. My mother and father were married in the State of Arkansas. I
claim by Choctaw blood from both. I do not know how old my father was
when he died, but my best judgment is that he was about 40. I do not know
positively what degree of Choctaw blood I have. I have heard my mother
gay she had Choctaw blood, and I have heard my father say he had Choctaw
blood. I never saw any of my grandparents. I do not remember who my
ftither's mother was, but I do remember who his father was. My parents told
me that my grandfather, Joseph Brashears, was a son of Zadoc Brashears. I
can not say that my father told me that Joseph was a son of Zadoc, but he did
say he was a descendant of Zadoc. I do not know who the wife of Zadoc
Brashears was. I know the Brashears people in the Choctaw Nation. Some
of them recognize me as their relative. George and John Brashears both
recognize me as a relative. George lives near Ada. John lives in Chickasaw
Nation. My father told me that Joseph came to Indian Territory. If there
are any brothers and sisters of my father living I do not know it. One sister.
May J. Coyle, died in the Chickasaw Nation. I had one uncle, William, who
lived somewhere, in the Choctaw Nation. I never had any uncles living in
Arkansaa I saw one uncle on my mother's side in Arkansas. His name was
Joseph Vaughn. I do not know where he or his descendants live. I never
was called upon to pay a permit when I was renting land.
Redirect :
When my father lived in the Choctaw Nation, Vaughn Brashears, who lived
on Brushy, In Choctaw Nation, repeatedly visited my father's family. Turner
Brashears, who also lived in Brushy, visited my father. Vaughn Brashears
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
318 . FH^E CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
urged my father to move Into his neighborhood, and said he would give my
father an improved farm. When I moved to the Choctaw Nation in 1890. I
claimed to be a Choctaw. I bought a lot in town and built a house. Richard
Brashears was a slave and belonged to Vaughn Brashears. He Is living and is
here now. I Icnow of two brothers of Joseph Brashears. Their names were
William and Vaughn. If there were any more I do not .know of it.
In response to commissioner;
My grandfather/ Joseph Brnsheiirs. was born In Ml88i88ipi)i. It has always
been my information that he was the son of Zadoc Brashears; the only thing
that I can not be positive at>out is that my father stated so.
Richard Brashears testified as follows:
I was bom in Alabama in 1S21. My home is now in the Chifkasaw Nation.
I came to the Indian Territory in 1831. I was brought here by Vaughn Bra-
shears. Louis, Benjamin. Jefferson, Willjam, and Tobias Brashears came at
the same time. These people were all emigrants as Choctaws to this country.
They came from Yazoo River, Miss. 1 was a slave, and belonged to
Vaughn Brashears. I lived with the Brashears family until two years before
the Civil War. I know Joseph Brashears. He was a son of Zadoc. I can not
say when I last saw Joseph. He came to the country to a place now called
Tuskahomn. He went from there to the State of Arkansas. He promised his
uncle to come back, but took sick and died there. He went to Arkansas to see
about some slaves and never came back.' His uncle was Vaughn Brashears.
William and Turner Brashears, brothers of Joseph, did not come to the Indian
Territory. They lived In Alabama. Zadoc did not come. He was killed In a
horse race In Alabama. They lived In Sumter County, on the Tomblgbee
River, where the Choctaws lived. The Brashears I refer to were mixed with
Choctaw and French. The French came from the father^s side. Zadoc was
French. He married a Vaughn, and she was Choctaw. I do not know what
year Joseph came to the Choctaw Nation. I saw him at his uncle's. I was
a slave.
On cross-examination :
I was bom in Alabama, and lived there seven or eight years ; was then tak»
to Mississippi, .on Tazoo River. I am sure that I lived in Sumter County.
It is In the southern part of the State. I was told by my old master that I
came from Sumter County, Ala.
In response to commissioner:
I do not know in what year Zadoc was kille<l. It was after I left Alabama.
His brother Turner told me.
Cross-examination continued :
I knew Joseph Brashears. We played boys together. I think he was bom
In Alabama. He was older than me. When I left Sumter County and went
over on the Yazoo he was going to school. He went away to school before
they brought me from Alabama. I don*t know how long before. I wasn't old
enough, and can't recollect. I next saw Joseph Brashears in the Choctaw
Nation, on the Kiamitia. near Tuskahoma. I did not speak to Joseph, but his
uncle told that about him. My master told me he was going to Fayetteville;
He also told me that he died there. I know William and Turner were Zadoc's
sons, and so was Joseph. We played boys together. William and Turner were
younger than Joseph. They were the sons of young Zadoc. Neither Zadoc
came to this country. It was young Zadoc that got killed. Turner told me.
Zadoc had a son Turner and also a brother Turner. His brother Turner came
out here to the Choctaw Nation. .The children of old Zadoc Brashears was
Jesse, Zadoc, Vaughn, and Turner. Young Zadoc's children were Joseph, Wil-
liam, and Turner.
Redirect examination :
I am a freedman, enrolled and allotted.
In response to commissioner:
Joseph was older than me. I wouldn't undertake to say how much older.
Joseph's two brothers were younger than he. William was next to Joseph, and
Turner next. Turner was older than me. I do no^ know what went with
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 319
tbem. We had been here seven or eight years when Joseph came. He had
with him some children and women. I can't say how many children. I don*t
know how big the children were. When I last siiw him in Alabama he was
not marrie<1. He was too young. When I last saw Joseph in Mississippi I
was a small boy, ajid when I again saw him in Choctaw Nation here I was
nearly grown. When I left Alabama old man Zadoc Brashears was living.
The old man of all. There were two Zadocs. old Zaduc and young Zadoc.
Both were living, well as I can recollect. Old Zadoc married a Vaughn. They
was mighty near full blood. Spoke a little English. Old Zadoc was a French
man. I did not hear of young Zadoc*s death until I go^ out to this country.
Turner, old Zadoc's son, told me he was the cause of his death. Old Zadoc
had four brothers. They were all French, and did not have any Choclaw blood
as I know of. I do not know whether these applicants are related to those
back in Alabama.
Nathan Gray testified as follows:
I am 56 years old. I live at Atoka. I am a free<lman. I was born and
raised in the Choctaw Nation, in the eastern part, near the Arkansas line, on
the Gray farm. I belonged to the Grays. I knew a Mortimer Brashears. He
lived across on the river near Poteau. He stopped at the Grays several times.
He was on his way to see Turner Brashears, who lived west of us In the Choc-
taw Nation. It was a little while before the Civil War that I knew him.
During two or three years before the war I saw him frequently. He was there
at times when he was not on his way to see his people. He and Mr. Gray
hanted and gambled together. Mortimer Brashears was 25 or 30 years old.
I was about 10 years old. I used to put up his horse, and he sometimes gave
me a dime. I got a licking about his horse.
June 27, 1906. Before the comiuksi^n at Duncan, Ind. T.,
Josephine Jones testified that she was a granddaughter of Joseph
Brashears; that she always understood she was kin to the Indians,
but did not know whether by blood or marriage ; that .she knew noth-
ing of Joseph Brasheaps's family; that she has always been taught
that she had some Brench blood, and that the name Brashears was
French; that she ji^ver heard of any Scotch blood in the family;
that Vaughn Bjpftshears wanted her to come to the Territory and
live, and that^^e refused to do so; that she was of French and
Indian blooc
Note bv/ counsel : The following witness was produced by the
commissioner for the purpose of contradicting the testimony of the
applicaiyt, the affidavit of James D. Coyle and Lucy Jones attached
to the /Original application, and especially for the purpose of im-
peaching the testimony of the freedman, Richard Brashears, and
upon wliose testimony the decision of the commission was based.
November 7, 1896. Before the commission at Blocker, Ind T.,
Sarah A. Harlan testified as follows:
I was 77 years old last January. My father was Sampson Moncrlef. My
mother was Sophie Moncrlef. I am not sure, but I think my mother died in
1854, In Alabama, Sumter County. Her maiden name was Sophia Brashears.
Her father was Zadoc Brashears. Her mother's name was Susan. I recollect
seeing grandfather Zadoc Brashears only once. I don't know what county he
was in when I saw him. I have never heard when he died. He was not living
when I left Alabama to come to the Territory. I was a little girl when I saw
him, 5 or 6 years old; just a mere recollection. Zadoc Brashetirs possessed no
Indian blood. He was a Scotchman. His wife Susan was a half-breed Indian.
She died when my mother was a little girl. I came to Indian Territory In 1850.
I do not know the name of my great-grand^)a rents on my grandmother's side.
I was a beneficiary under the fourteentli article of the treaty of 1830. I do not
kiTow how many children Susan and Zadoc Brashears had. I only heard of
them through my laother. Jesse Brashears was a brother of my mother.
\
Digitized by VjOOQIC
320 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Zadoc Brasliears, jr., was a brother of my mother. Vaughn and Turner Bra-
shears were brothers of my mother. She also had sisters, but I don't know
that I can name them all — Susan. Elizahetli, Anne, and one more; I don't recol-
lect her name. Jesse died in Mississippi. He never came to the Territory. I
do not know what year he died. Anne died in Alabama — I do not know when.
Elizabeth died In Alabama when I was very small. Susan died in Jackson,
Miss.; I do not know when, but before I came to the Territory. Turner came
to this country and died. I don't know when he settled, but he died out here
before I came. He never had any descendants. His wife died in Alabama.
Vaughn came to this country niul died here. I saw him once after I came here:
he died somewhere along in isr>2 or isri3. He has one descendant that I know
of living now, a iMjy, named Turner. Uncle Zaidoc die<l in Alabama after my
birih. but I don't recollect anything about it. I was a mere child. I can't say
how long before I came to the Territory- he died. Zadw was married iU the
time of his death. His wife's name was Anne: I do not know the maiden name.
He lived near Mol<cow. on Bigbee River. I visited his home after his death.
His children were Turner, John, and William (who were twins), and Oleiina.
He had no other children. Turner died near Moscow when young. John «lied
when a boy — just a little boy — In Alabama. William died. Oleana moved with
her mother to Texas and I lost track of them. I never heard of Joseph. I
never heard of Mortimer Brashears, 1 never heard of Sarah Vaughn. 1 have
kept up tolerably well with my mother's brothers and sisters. Outside of that
I know nothing. When I saw Vaughn Bra shears here In the nation he was at
Poteau. I have heard It talkeil of that he brought here a slave by the name of
Richard Brashears. If any of the sons (»f Zadoc lived on Yazoo River, as stated
by Richard, I don't know It. I don't know whether Zadoc Brashears was killed
in a horse race, as stated by Richard. He was shot at a horse race, is what my
mother told me. His wife's name was Anne. The two Zadocs, my gi*andfather
and uncle, are the only ones by that name I ever heard of. I got my informa-
tion from my mother. I didn't know v^ry much about my relatives. Grand-
father Zadoc had no Indian blood. He was Scotch. I testitied In the case of
Joseph Moncrlef that Zadoc Brashears marrltnT'^usan Vaughn. That was her
maiden name. I said she was a half-breed ChoctaV. That is correct.
Cross-examination by attorney for ai)pllcants\
I have always heard them say that Dick Bra shea rs'Viis a slave of Vaughn
Brashears. In 1853 or 1854, when I went back to visit nKrnother, she told me
all about her sisters and brothers, and there was no Jose)!^ In her brothers;
and if it had been so she would have told It. I did not ask hicabout a Joseph.
It is correct, as testified by Dick Brashears, that my mother's wither was shot
and killed in a horse race. It is correct, as testified by Richard Sjashears, that
Vaughn Brashears came to the Territory and lived and died here. ^ ^^ correct,
as testified to by Richard Bra&hears, that Turner Brashears came tO*the Terri-
tory and lived and died here. It is correct, as testified to by Richard tfrashears,
that Jesse was the oldest child. I never heard of one of the children goM^K away
to school, as stated by Richard Brashears. It Is correct, as stated bylElichard
Brashears, thnt Zadoc, sr., Vaughn, and Jesse Brashears lived In Sumter County,
Ala. All the Brashears who lived there were Indians except the old ol^Jnal
Brashears. All that came/rom there were of Indian descent. I only haAtwo
come. It is correct that all that die<l there and all that came here wer? o^
Indian descent. There was only two thnt came. There were no families ll\^g
there during my time by the name of Brashears who did not have Indian blocid-
If Napoleon B. Brashears can connect himself with Turner and Vaughn Br;^
shears he would be an Indian, but I have never been able to connect him.
January 26, 1907. The commissioner rendered a decision wherein
he very brieflv summarizes the testimony of the witness Sarah A.
Harlan, and then states:
I am further of the opinion that the evidence clearly estnblishes that the Jo-
seph Brashears through whom the applicants herein claim descent was not a
descendant of Zadoc Brashears. sr.. and Susan Brashears (n^ Vaughn), and
that none of the applicants herein are r>ossesse(l of Choctaw blood.
I am further of the opinion that inasmuch as none of the applicants herein
are possessed of Choctaw blood, the enrollment of the applicants whose names
ui>pear uixm the 1896 Choctaw census roll wns without authority of law, and
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 321
timt under the provisions of tlie act of Congress approved June 28, 1896 (30
Stats., 495), their names should be strlclcen therefrom.
January 28, 1897. Record forwarded department.
March 4, 1907. Secretary of the Interior addressed the following
letter to the commissioner.
In accordance with the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States
of February 19, 1907 (L T. D.. 4564), In the consolidated case of William C.
Thompson et al., your decision of JtCnuary 26, 1907, denying the application for
the enrollment of Napoleon B. Brnshears et al. as citizens of the Choctaw Nation
is hereby affirmed.
A copy of Indian Office letter of February 27, 1907 (Land 10771), recommend-
ing: the above action, is inclosed.
The papers in the case and a carbon copy thereof have be&i sent to the
Indian Office.
Respectfully, E. A. Hitchcock, Secretary,
STATE^fENT BY COUNSEIi.
Counsel for claimants assert that the^ record in this case as for-
warded to the department January 28, 1907, received no consideration
as is evidenced by the Secretary's letter wherein he states that the
commissioner's decision is affirmed in accordance with the opinion
of the Attorney General of February 19, 1907, which opinion related
to cases that had been in the United States and citizenship courts
while this case had never been in those courts, the applicants having
stood upon their tribal enrollment and their applications to the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes under the act of June 28,
1898.
Counsel also directs attention to the fact that no witness testi-
fied that these applicants were without Indian blood, and the state-
ments of applicants as to their Indian ancestry are strongly cor-
roborated by their witness and especially by an old freedman, whose
testimony is corroborated in the main by one witness upon whose
testimony the commissioner says it is clearly established that none
of the applicants are of Indian blood.
Counsel submits that the holding of the commissioner that the
tribal enrollment of applicants was without authority of law was
warranted by the facts and contrary to previous holdings of the
department, and that Congress should restore them to the rights con-
ferred upon them by the tribal officials and to which they are justly
entitled.
Those entitled to enrollment are: Napoleon B. Brashears, La Fa-
yette Brashears, Arthur Brashears, Fred Brashears, Logan Brashears,
Amanda J. Freeze, Damon Freeze, Kaymond Freeze, Ruby Freeze,
Earl Freeze, Sarah E. Scott, John C. Salmon, Fannie Salmon, Lois
Salmon, Ida M. Duncan, Dora M. Duncan, Francis E. Duncan, Leo
Lester Brashears, Floyd Lafayette Brashears, Alvey Fred Brashears,
and Myrtle Viola Duncan as citizens by blood, and Mary J. Brashears
and Ollie Duncan as citizens by intermarriage.
(Twenty-three in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
BALiiiNGER & Lee.
and Walter S. Field.
69282—13 21
Digitized by VjOOQIC
322 five civilized tbibe8 in oklahoma.
Joseph C. Moore et al., Chickasaws. No. 5010.
Commission, No. 203. United States Court, No. 83. Citizenship
Court, No. 14-T.
July 23, 1884. District Court of the Chickasaw Nation, B. W.
Carter, judge, admitted the following and their families to citizen-
^ip: Fannie Moore, Cathrine A. Wijjand, Mary Hamlet. Elizabeth
Parker, Millard Bunn^ John R. Cappel, Joseph C. Moore, Millard A.
Crabtree, John S. Layman, Lillian Layman, Fannie T. Layman, Mary
Pack, John F. Moore, Harvey B. Moore, and Francis A. Beavers, and
Tieirs and descendants of Colbert Moore, a citizen of the Chickasaw
Nation, east.
September 2, 1896. Application filed with Dawes Commission for
admission to citizenship of the following-named persons, all of whom
had been admitted by the Chickasaw court or are the descendants of
those admitted: Fannie Moore, Cathrine Moore, Joseph C. Moore,
Hattie Moore (Layman), Mary Moore (Pack), John F. Moore,
Harvev B. Moore, Mildred A. Moore (Crabtree), Eliza O. Moore
(Capel), Francis A. Moore (Beavers), Charles A. Wigffand, Mary
A. Moore, Charles E. Moore, Joseph Clay Moore, John Colbert Moore,
Mary Meda Moore (Clayton). Lillian Layman (Womack), John C.
Womack, Clyde Womack, Gladys Womack. W. M. Pack, Emma Pack
(Flippen), Thomas Pack, Hattie Pack, J. C. Flippen, Eva Pack Flip-
pen, Mary Moore, Susie Moore (McVeigh), Colbert Modre, Adelia
Moore, Alfred Moore, Wyatt Moore^ Harvey Adams Moore, Irene
Moore, Clay Moore, Glennie Moore, Joseph Newburn Moore, Mary
Moofe, J. iS. Clavton, Clara Edna Clayton, John S. Layman, A. B.
Crabtree, J. M. Crabtree, Mattie Crabtree, Lee Crabtree, Effie Crab-
tree, Wesley Crabtree, Nora Crabtree, Eddie Crabtree, Charlie Crab-
tree, L. D. Crabtree, Lavina C. Crabtree, Juanita Crabtree, Mary
Minerva Crabtree, Allie B. Crabtree, Laura E. Crabti'ee, Emma A.
Ci*a:btree, Robert Capel, Mary Capel (Hamlet-Bunn), Elizabeth
Ciqpel *(]rarker), George McVeigh, Guv McVeigh, Arthur McVeigh,
fiva A. Moore, James C. Moore, OUie Moore, Gertrude Moore, Fred
Moore, J. L. (Jrabtree, Bettie Hamlet, D. A. Parker ^Mary A. Parker,
Samuel A. Parker, Robert C. Parker, Charles E. Parker, Agnes C.
Parker, Douglas A. Parker, G. W. Bunn, Westie Bunn, Seldwi Lati-
mer, ST., Selden Latimer, jr.^ue Capel, Stanley Capel, Minnie Capel,
B. B. Beavers, Walter L. Beavers, Beulah Beavers, Nora Beavers,
Mildred Capel (Latimer), John R. Capel, John F. Hamlet, Allie
HAmlet, JacK Hamlet, Nole Hamlet, Rosebud Beavers, B. B. Beavers,
Frank Beavers, Gertrude Beavers, and Beulah Beavers.
November 23, 1896. Decision of commission admitting the follow-
ing: John S. Layman, Lillian Womack (Layman), Gladys (Mrs.
L. C.) Layman, Mary Pack, John F. Moore, Alfred Moore, Wyatt
Moore. Harvey B. Moore, Fred Moore, James C. Moore, Mary Hamlet
(Capel), Elizabeth Parker (Capel), Charles E. Parker, Ames G.
Parker, Douglas A. Parker, Selden Latimer, jr., Wesley Bunn, Minnie
Capel, and Francis A. Beavers, all as citizwis by blood, and Selden
Latimer, sr., and John C. Womack as intermarried^ and rejecting all
the other applicants. (See letter, June 12, 1905.)
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 323
From this decision an appeal was taken to the United States Court
for the Southern District of Indian Territory. Records do not dis-
close date of appeal.
May 27, 1899. Judgment of the United States court holding that
the Chickasaw court judgment of 1884 " is valid and binding upon
the Chickasaw Nation, and its regularity can not now be questioned,"
and that " the judgment estops the Chickasaw Nation from denying
the citizenship by blood of Fannie Moore and her descendants," and
further holding that the following names constitute the lineal
descendants of Fannie Moore and the original parties named in the
decree of the Chickasaw district court who now reside in the Indian
Territory, and assert their rights under the above judgment: Joseph
C. Moore, Mary A. Moore, C. E. Moore, John C. Moore, Mary Mcde
Clayton (n6e Moore), Clara E. Clayton, Harvey Adams Moore, Edna
Moore, Joe Clay Moore, jr., Irene Moore, Glennie Moore, Joseph New-
bum Moore, John S. Layman, J. C. Womack, Mrs. J. C. Womack (n^
Layman), Gladys Womack, John F. Moore, Mary Moore, Susie
McVeigh {n6e Moore), Colbert Moore, Adelia Moore, Alfred Moore,
Wyat Moore, Guy McVeigh, Arthur McVeigh, Harvey B. Moore,
Eva Moore, C. J. 'Moore, OUie Moore, Gertrude Moore, Fred Moore,
A. B. Crabtree, Mattie Crabtree, Lee Crabtree, Abbie Crabtree, Wes-
ley Crabtree, Nora Crabtree, Eddie Crabtree, Charlie Crabtree, L. D.
Crabtree, J. M. Crabtree, Lavinia C. Crabtree, Juanita Crabtree,
Minnie Crabtree, Allie B. Crabtree, Laura E. Crabtree, Emma Crab-
tree, Mrs. Zue Capel Cox, Stanley Capel, Minnie Capel, Elizabeth
Parker, D. A. Parker, Mary M. Parker, Samuel A. Parker, Robert
C. Parker, Charles E. Parker, Agnes G. Parker, and Douglas A.
Parker.
That the following are intermarried citizens: J. S. Clayton,
Greorge McVeigh, Selden Latimer, B. C. Wigand, and J. L. Crabtree.
August 16, 1899. Application made by all applicants to the Com-
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes at Durant, before Commissioner
McKennon, and applicant^ admitted.
December 17, 1902. Judgment of the United States court annulled
by decision of the citizenship court in test case.
February 23, 1903. Record transferred to citizenship court.
November 28, 1904. Decision of citizenship court denying citizen-
ship to all the parties.
December 6, 1904. Citizenship court overruled motion for rehear-
ing, Judge Adams stating:
In the consolidated cases of Joseph C. Moore et al., J. S. Layman et al.,
Walter L. Beavers et al., and J. M. Crabtree et al. v. Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nations, the coart has gone through this ease and considered the motion for
rehearing in the matter, and after a thorough and careful investigation of all
the points raised on botti sides we are of the opinion that we see no reason why
the opinion heretofore rendered by the court should be disturbed, hepce this
motion is overruled. I will say this: The facts in this case appeal very
strongly to me, and I wish I could see (and when I say " I," I mean the court)
the court wishes it could see some way in which to admit these people. It is
true the treaty of the Choctaws and Chickasaws with the Government in 1837
does not specify any time in which these people shall come here. Taking the
history of all these treaties and the legislation affecting the Indians, you can't
shnt your eyes to the proposition that the great object of the Government was
to remove these Indians here; and in my opinion, if there had been no pro-
vision in any of the treaties as to when they should come here, they would have
been required to come within a reasonable time. As to the ancestor and ances-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
324 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
tress of these claimants, there is no question but that Mrs. Moore was au
Indian who lived in Mississippi, and was a Chicliasaw Indian. Leaving there
they moved to Tennessee, where they remained a while, and then moved on to
Arljansas, and died. If they had come to the Territory in a reasonable time we
would be of the opinion that they would be entitled to admission. Having
failed in this, their application is denied.
January 27, 1905. CJommission dismissed pending applications of
new-bom children of applicants because of the action of the citizen-
ship court.
March 31, 1905. Conunission dismissed applications of Joe Steele
Clayton, who died September, 1900; and of Allen B. Crabtree, who
died December 2, 1900; and of John F. Moore, who died in Novem-
ber, 1900.
February 6, 13, and 21, 1906; March 13 and 16, 1906; and April
13, 1906. Petitions filed with commissioner and department for en-
rollment of all the applicants without regard to any previous action.
June 5 and 28, 1906. Hearing before Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes. Testimony to the effect that claimants are Chicka-
saws by blood, and that L. P. Moore, a first cousin of Joseph C.
Moore, is on final rolls as a Chickasaw by blood.
Note.— L. P. Moore, No. 3379, one-half Chickasaw. Certificate of
G. G. Murry, census taker, offered and admitted in evidence, showing
that he " duly and according to law, in June, 1893, enrolled as
Chickasaws, H. B. Moore and family and D. A. Parker and family.''
Note. — Chickasaw pay roll, 1893, No. 2, shows the following: Page
14: Nos. 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 458, 459,
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, and 465.
" These people came directly from Arkansas to register claim.
They are relatives of these Moores.''
November 1, 1906. Decision of commissioner ordering enrolled
persons shown on first page of this record and excluding John F.
Moore and Ellen B. Crabtree because of their death prior to 1902,
and excluding, for the reason that their names, or the names of their
immediate parents, do not appear in the judgment of the Chickasaw
court, the following: James M. Crabtree, James Lee Crabtree,
Abbie Crabtree, Addie Crabtree, Wesley Crabtree, Nora Crabtree,
Charley Crabtree, L. D. Crabtree, Mary M. Harris, Juanita M. Crab-
tree, Allie B. Crabtree, Laura C. Crabtree, Emma A. Crabtree,
Clara M. Crabtree, Eva A. Moore, Mary A. Moore, Mary T. Moore,
David A. Parker, Missouri Cox, Jonathan L. Crabtree, Mattie Crab-
tree, Lavina Crabtree, John S. Clayton, and G. D. McVeigh; and
excluding the following new-boms under the act of April 26, 1906,
because of the rejection of their parents by this decision : Gracie Lee
Crabtree, Lucy Ann Harris, Andrew Stephen Harris^ Jonathan Mon-
roe Harris, Bertha Crabtree, Gertie Crabtree, William Franklin
Crabtree, Ben Allen Crabtree, Arthur Lee Crabtree, OUie May Car-
lisle, and John B. Hale; and denying, because of nonresidence in
1898, Joseph C. Moore, jr.; and denying, under the ruling of the
department in the Mary Elizabeth Martin case, John H. Layman.
February 27, 1907. Commissioner of Indian Affairs recommends
that the enrollment by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes
be disapproved, under the opinion of the Attorney General of Febru-
ary 19, 1907.
March 4, 1907. Enrollment disapproved by secretary.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 325
June 1, 1909. Department holds case not analogous to Goldsby
case.
Testimony taken before citizenship court June 30, 1904: J. M.
Crabtree stated he was the son of Mildred A. Crabtree ; that he first
married in 1883; that he had voted continuousljr in the tribal elec-
tions, held land, issued permits, and sent his children to the tribal
schools.
Note. — ^He was admitted by the United States court.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submits that all those persons
induded in the United States court judgment, and their children Iborn
thereafter, and for, whose enrollment applications were made to the
commission within the time prescribed by law, are entitled to enroll-
ment. ThOT are as follows: C. A. Wigand, Joseph C. Moore, sr.,
Mary A. Moore, C. E. Moore, John C. Moore, Mary Mede Clayton
(n6e Moore) , Clara E. Clayton, Harvey Adams Moore, Edna Moore,
Joe Clay Moore, jr., Irene Moore, Glennie Moore, Joseph Newbum
Moore, John S. Layman, J. C. Womack, Mrs. J. C. Womack (n6e
Layman), Gladys Womack, John F. Moore, Mary T. ^oore, Susie
McVeigh (n^e Moore), Colbert Moore, AdeUa Moore, Alfred Moore,
Wyat Moore, Guy McVeiffh, Arthur McVeigh, Harvey B. Moore,
Eva 'Moore, C. J. Moore, Ollie Moore» Gertrude Moore, Fred Moore,
A. B. Crabtree, Mattie Crabtree, Lee Crabtree, Abbie Crabtree,
Wesley Crabtree, Nora Crabtree, Eddie Crabtree, Charley Crabtree,
L. D. Crabtree, J. M. Crabtree, Lavinia C. Crabtree, Juanita Crab-
tree, Minnie Crabtree, Allev B. Crabtree, Laura E. Crabtree, Emma
A. Crabtree, Mrs. Zue Capel-Cox, Stanley Capel, Minnie Capel, D. A.
Parker, May M. Parker, Samuel A. Parker, Kobert C. Parker, Charles
E. Parker, Agnes G. Parker, Douglas A. Parker, and George
McVeigh.
Intermarried: J. S. Clayton, S. McVeigh, Selden Latimer, B. C.
"Wigand, and J. L. Crabtree.
Newborns: Gracie Lee Crabtree, Lucy Ann Harris, Andrew Ste-
phen Harris, Jonathan Monroe Hanis, Berta Crabtree, Gertie Crab-
tree, William Franklin Crabtree, Ben Allen Crabtree, Arthur Lee
Crabtree, Ollie May Carlisle, and John S. Hale.
(Exhibits attached.)
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Lee
and Walter S. Field,
Attorneys for Claimants.
In the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, sitting at Tishomingo, Ind. T.,
December 6, 1904.
Joseph C. Moore et al. v. Choctaw and Chiclsasaw Nations. No. 14. J. S. Layman
et al. V. Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. No. 124. Walter L. Beavers et al.
V. Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. No. 114. J. M. Crabtree et al. v. Choctaw
and Chickasaw Nations. No. 118.
ORDER.
Court being duly opened the following proceedings were had :
Judge Adams: In the consolidated cases ot Joseph C. Moore et al., J. S.
Layman et al., Walter L. Beavers et al., and J. M. Crabtree et al. t?. Choctaw
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
326 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
and Chickasaw Nations, the c6urt has gone through this case and considered
the motion for rehearing In the matter, and after a thorough and careful
investigation of all the points raised on both sides we are of the opinion that
we see no reason why the opinion heretofore rendered by the court should l>e
disturbed, hence this motion is oTerruIed. I will say this: The facts in this
case appeal very strongly to me, and I wish I could see (and wh^i I say ** I**
I mean the court), the court wishes it could see some way in which to admit
these pepple. It is true the treaty of the Choctaws and Chickasaws with the
Government in 1837 does not specify any time in which these people shall come
here. Taking the history of all these treaties and the legislation afifecting the
Indian, you can't shut your eyes to the proposition that the great object of the
Government was to remove these Indians here; and in my opinion if there had
been no provision in any of the treaties as to when they should come here they
would have been required to come within a reasonable tiiae. As to the ancestor
and ancestress of these claimants, there is no question but what Mrs. Moore
was an Indian who lived in Mississippi, and was a Chickasaw Indian. Leaving
there they moved to Tennessee, where they remained awhile, and then moved
on to Arkansas and died. If they had come to the Territory in a reasonable time
we would be of the opinion that they would be entitled to admission. Having
Called in this their application is denied.
Choctaw Nation, County of Blue,
Caddo, Ind. T., County and Probate Covbt.
At the May term of said court A. B. Crabtree, a citizen of said county and
jiatUm, having complied with the requirements of the permit law, and the sanie
being granted by the Judge of said court :
Now, therefore, I, M. F. Robinson, county clerk of said court, do hereby Issue
a permit to James Hewett. as renter ^n the employ of A. B. Crabtree, for the
period of 12 months from date hereof, with privilege to do all things neoessai?
to prosecute said vocation not contrary to laws and regulations respecting
limons obtaining permits.
Given under my hand and seal of office of said county, this, the 7Ui of May,
A. D. 1894.
[si;AL.] M. F. Robinson.
Clerk County Court, Blue County, Choctaw yation.
P£BMIT.
County or Blue, Choctaw Natiott, Ind. T.
To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye that I, J. H. Goforth, Judge of the county and probate court of said
county, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me vested by the laws of
the Choctaw Nation, do hereby grant unto Lee Spelts, a citizen of the United
States, a permit to reside in the Choctaw Nation as a renter in the employ of
Mra M. Crabtree.
This permit shall expire December 31, 1902.
Given under my hand and seal of the county this 3d day of March, 1902.
[SEAL.] J. H. GOFOBTH,
County and Probate Judge af Said County, Choctaw Vutiom.
Attest :
F. E. FoLSOM, County Clerk.
Choctaw Nation, County of Blue.
Caddo, Ind T., County Seat of said County.
At the January term of said court A. B. Crabtree. a dtlssen of said county
and nation, having complied with the requirements of the permit law, and the
same being granted by the Judge of said court :
Now, therefore, I, M. F. Robinson, county clerk of said county, do hereby
issue a permit to John S. Smith as renter in the employ of A. B. CrftMree
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 327
•for the period of 12 months from date hereof, with privilege to do all things
necessary to prosecute said vocation not contrary to the laws and regulations
respecting persons obtaining permits.
Given under my hand and seal of office of siiid countv this the 4th day of
January, 1892.
[SEAi^] M. P. Robinson,
County Clerk, Blue County, Choctaw Nation,
Choctaw Nation, County of Blue,
Cadd^, Ind T., CJounty Seat of said CJounty.
At the Januarj' tenn of said court A. B. Crabtree, a citizen of said county
and nation, having complied with the requirements of the permit law, and the
same being granted by the judge of said court :
Now, therefore, I, M*. F. Robinson, county clerk of said county, do hereto
Issue a permit to J. H. Hewett as renter in the employ of A. B. Crabtree
for the period of 12 months from date hereof, with privilege to do all things
necessary to prosecute said vocation not contrary to the laws and reguhitlons
respecting persons obtaining permits.
Given under my hand and seal of office of said county this the 2d day of
January, A. D. 1893.
[SEAL.] MoKEE p. ROBINSOISf,
County Clerk, Blue County, Choctaw Nation,
Choctaw Nation, County of Blue,
Caddo, Ind T., County Seat of said County.
At the January term of said court A. B. Crabtree, a citizen of said county
and nation, having complied with the requirements of the permit law, and the
same being granted by the judge of said court:
Now, therefore, I, M. F. Robinson, county clerk of said county, do hereby
issue a permit to J. H. Hammock as renter in the employ of A. B. Crabtree
for the period of 12 months from date hereof, with privilege to do all thipgs
necessary to prosecute said vocation not contrary to the laws and regulations
respecting persons obtaining permits.
Given under my hand and seal of office of said county this the ^d day of
January, A. D. 1893.
[seal.] McKee p. Robinson,
County Clerk, Blue County, Choctaw Nation.
PERMIT.
County of Blue, Choctaw Nation, Ind. T.
Tq aU whom these presetUs 9hall come, greeting:
•Know ye that I, J. H. Goforth, judge of the county and probate court of said
comity, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me vested by the laws
of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby grant unto William Ritter, a citizen <rf t^ie
United States, a permit to reside in the Choctaw Nation as a renter in t^ie
employ of Mrs. M. A. Crabtree.
This permit shall expire December 31, 1001.
GlTcn under my hand and seal of the county this 7th day of January, 1901.
[SEAL.] J. H. Gqfobth,
County and Probate Judge of said County, Choctaw Nation.
Attest :
F. E. FOLSOM, County Clerk.
PERMIT.
i?ouNTY OF Blue, Choctaw Nation, Ind. T,
Yo all whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye that I, J. H. Goforth, Ju^ge o>f the county and probate court of said
county, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me J'MfS^by^^'^J^^
328 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby grant unto one Coyer, a citizen of the United
States, a permit to reside in the Choptaw Nation as a renter in the employ of
Mrs. M. Crabtree.
This permit shall expire December 31, 1902.
Given under my hand and seal of the countj' this 3d day of March, 1902.
[SEAL.] J. H. GOFOBTH,
County and Probate Judge of said County^ Choctaw Nation,
Attest :
F. E. FoLSOM, County Clerk.
PERMIT.
County OF Blue, Choctaw Nation, Tnd, T.
To all whom these presents shall come, oreeiing:
Know ye that I, J. H. Goforth, Judge of the county and probate court of said
county, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me vested by the laws
of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby grant unto one Kentred, a citizen of the
United States, a permit to reside in the Choctaw Nation as a renter in the
employ of Mrs. M. Crabtree.
This permit shall expire December 31, 1902.
Giy^i under my hand and seal of the county this 3d day of March, 1902.
[SEAL.] J. H. GOFOBTH,
County and Probate Judge of said County, Choctaw Nation,
Attest:
F. E. FoLSOM, County Clerk.
I
COPY OF ORDER OF COURT.
United States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, southern district, at a'
term thereof begun and held at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory, on the 10th
day of April, A. D. 1899.
Present: The Hon. Hosea Townsend, judge of said court
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Fannie Mooro et al., No. 83, v. Chickasaw Nation. Judgment
On this day in open court came on to be heard the above cause heretofore
appealed to this court from decisions of the Dawes Commission rendered upon
the day of December. 1896, and came the plaintiffs, by their attorneys,
A. G. Mosely and R J. Smith, and came the defendant, by Its attorney, W. B.
Johnson, and announced ready for trial. And came onto be heard the def^id-
ant*8 exceptions to the master's report, which having been heard and consldfiared
by the court, were in all things denied. And then came on to be heard plain-
tiff's motion for Judgment, heretofore filed In this cause on the 11th day of
March, 1898, In words as follows, namely: "Come now the plaintiffs in the
above cause and move the court to grant and enter Judgment directing the
enrollment of plaintiffs as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, for this, that the
master's report based upon the testimony heretofore taken shows that both In
law and In fact all of the plaintiffs are by blood and by marriage citizens of
the Chickasaw Nation and entitled to be enrolled as such." And it appearing
to this court that this cause was heretofore, to wit, on the day of January.
1897, referred to W. H. L. Campbell, master in chancery, for Investigation and
report, and that the said master In chancery did, upon the 9th day of October,
1897, after having fully examined thereunto, file in this court his report Includ-
iDg both his finding of facts and his conclusions of law. In words and figures
as follows, namely : " In the Unltetl States court, Southern District, at Ardmore,
Ind. T. Fannie Moore et al. v. Chickasaw Nation. The descendants of Fan-
nie Moore filed an application for admission to enrollment before the Five
Civilized Tribes on the 2d day of September, 1896. From the records before
this court from the said commission. It Is impossible to ascertain the exact
date on which said commission rendered Judgment, but the record shows Unit
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IX OKLAHOMA. 329
U was rendered between November 30 and December 10, 1896. Tbe Chickasaw
legislature passed the following act. which was approved by the governor of
said nation on the 18th day of May, 1884. The act is as follows:
"An Act To define the rights of citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation.
" Section 1. Be it enacted hy the Legislature of the Chickasaw Nation, That
any and all i)erson8 claiming the rights of citizenship In this nation, whose rights
are disputed, shall be required by the district attorney of the Chickasaw Nation
to appear before the Judge of the district court by citation of the clerk of the
court with their evidence and prove their rights as citizens.
" Sec. 2. Be it further enacted. That all persons whose rights are thus deter-
mine<l by the court, and wishing to api>eal from the decision of the district
court, may do so by petition of oath setting forth their reasons for appeal and
giving bond as is now required by law.
'* Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, Thnt in all suits for the rights of citizenship
the parties claiming citizenship shall pay the cost that may accrue In the '
prosecution of such suit.
*' Sec. 4. Be it further enacted, In all suits for the rights of citizenship the
district attorney shall represent the nation, and all law or parts of law In
conflict with this act be. and the same are hereby, repealed, and that this act
take effect from and after its passage.
**Approved May 14, 1884.
" Jones Wolf, Oovemor,*'
It a PI ken rs that some time during the year 1884 Fannie Moore nnd several of
her children and grandchildren united in a suit against the Chicknsaw Nation
In the district court of said nation to have their rights determined as citizens
of the nation In accordance with the provisions of the statute. On the 23d
day of July. 1884, the district court of the Chickasaw Nation rendered the fol-
lowing judgment :
" In the matter of the petition of Fannie Moore et al., now resident Chicka-
saws, to have their rights to citizenship declared and defined according to law:
Now, on this day is filed and presented the petition of Fannie Moore, Catherine
A. Wigand. Mary Hnmlet. Elizabeth Parker, Mildred Bunn, John R. Capeh
Joseph C. Moore, Mildred A. Crabtree. John S. Layman, Lillian Layman, Fannie
T. I-*ayman. Mary Pack. John F. Moore, Harvey B. Moore, and BYances A.
Beavers, praying that they be recognized as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation
and that their rights as such citizens be declared by this court according to law.
And It appearing to the satisfaction of the court from said petition and exhibits
thereto and the testimony of witnesses examined by the court, that said peti-
tioners are the legal heirs and descendants of Colbert Moore, deceased, and
that prior to and at the time of the removal of this nation from the State of
Mifwisslppi the said Colbert Moore was a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation and
entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to such citizenship:
** It is therefore considered, ordere<l, and odjudged by the court that the
said Fannie Moore, Catherine A. Wigand, Mary Hamlet. Ellznbeth Parker,
Mildred Bunn. John R. Caveh Joseph C. Moore, Mildred A. Crabtree. John S.
Layman. Lillian Toyman. Fannie T. I4iyraan. Mary Pack, John F. Moore,
Harvey B. Ikfoore. and Frances A. Beavers are hereby entitled to all the rights,
privlleifes, and Inmiunltles held and enjoyed by any other Chlckasaws or Chicka-
saw families: and that they and each of them be protected In the enjoyment
of such rights, privileges, and Immunities as fully nnd completely as if the
residence of said Colbert Moore and his family with the Chickasaw Nation
bad l)een uninterrupted and continuous to thip day.
** In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my name and affixed the seal of
the di.«trlct court of the Chickasaw Xatlc»n on the 23d of July, 1884.
** B. W. Cartf.b, District Judge,
"Tiios. W. Johnston,
*• Cterk pro tern, of Chickasaw \ation.
*' I. J. F. Williams, hereby certify that this Is a true copy of the original now
on file in office. Given under my hand and seal of office this the 30th day of
August, 1884.
"J. F. Williams,
** District Clerk, Chickasaw Nation"
At the time of the rendition of this judgment Fannie B. Moore and all of the
ap|)licants who were then living were nonresidents of the Indian Territory, and
Digitized by V^OOQIC
880 PIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
a larj?e portion of the parties named In the judgment and their lineal descend-
ants have since become residents of this Territory, as will appear further on
in this report. There Is also testimony to show that Fannie Moore and her de-
scendants were Chickasaw Indians by blood. The Chickasaw^ Nation In its
answer admits that the judgment above quoted was rendered in the district
court of said nation as alleged in the ai)plication, but alleges that the judgment
was procured through fraudulent means and rendered without service upon the
nation. They further allege that Colbert Moore, husband of Fanuie Moore,
ancestors of applicants, were citizens of the United States and were not mem-
bers of the Chickasaw Nation by blood or intermarriage. The first defense,
that the judgment was procured by fraud, was not supported by any testimony
whatever. Upon second defense, though the judgment was rendered without
proper notice to the Chickasaw Nation, the affidavit of H. F. Murray, who was
attorney general of the Chickasaw Nation pt the time the judgment was ren-
dered, on that point Is as follows:
"That I was the attorney general of the (^hickasaw Nation and the appli-
cants presented their claims for citizenship before the (district) judge. I was
not notified of the case and was forced to go into trial at once, without being
given an opportunity to procure witnesses for the Chickasaw Nation. On the
testimony of the applicants the district judge admitted them, etc."
It will be noticed that the aflidavit states that the attorney general api^ared
In court for the nation and representetl the natlcJn In the t»ial of the case.
It may be, according to affidavit, that judgment was erroneous, but was not
such error as would render the judgment void. To destroy the binding effect
would liave been necessary for the nation to appeal from the judgment to
correct tlie errors. The appearance of the attorney general Is sufficient so far
f%B the validity of the Judgment is concerned, uiwn collateral attack, for the
Chickasaw Nation. I find as a matter of fact that the above judgment is valid
and binding upon the Chickasaw Nation, and Its regularity can not l)e now
questioned. I further find that tlie judgment estops the Chickasaw Nation
from denying the citizenship by blood of Fannie Moore and her deseendanta.
The following names constitute the lineal descendants of Fannie Moore and
the original parties named In the decree of the (Tilckasaw district court who
now reside in the Indian Territory and assert their rights under the above
judgment: B. C. Wigand, who married Catherine Moore prior to 1870; Joseph
C. Moore and his wife, Mary A. Moore; C. B. Moore, John C. Moore; Mary
Mede Moore, now Mrs. J. S. Clayton, and her child, Clara E. Clayton; Harvey
Adams Moore, Edna Moore, Joe Clay Moore and his wife, Mrs. Irene Mcx>re,
and their two children, Glennle Moore and Joseph Newburn Moore; John S.
Layman and his child; Mrs. J. C. Womack and her child, Gladys Woraack;
J. C. Womack. John F. Moore and his wife, Mary, and their children; SiYsie
McVeigh, Colbert Moore, Adella Moore. Alfred Moore, Wyat Moore, and Guy
and Arthur McVeigh, children of Susie McVeigh; Harvey B. Moore and his
wife, Eva Moore, and their children, C. J. Moore. Ollle Moore. Gertrude Moore.
Fred Moore; J. li. Crabtree, who married Mildred Moore prior to 1876, |ind
their children, A. B. Crabtree and J. M. Crabtree; A. B. Crabtree and his wife,
Mattle, and their children, I..ee, Abble. Wesley, Nora, Eddie, Charlie, and L. D.
Crabtree; J. M. Crabtree and his wife, Lavlnle C, and their children, Juanita.
Mary, Minnie, Allle V., Laura E., and Enuna Crabtree; Mrs. Zue Capel, wite
of John R. Capel, now deceased, and now the wife of Robert Cox, and h&r
ohlldren, Stanley Capel and I^f innle Capel ; Elizabeth Parker, D. A. Parker, and
children. May M., Samuel A., Robert C, Charles E., Agnes G., £>oiigla8 A.
Parker. The following list constitutes the descendants of Fannie Moore who
do not now and never liave resided In the Indian Territory; Mary Moore.
now Mrs. W. M. Pack, and her children, Emma, Thomas, and Hattie Pack:
J. C. Fllppen, W. M. Pack, Eva Flippen, child of Emma Pack and J. C.
Fllppen; Mary Capel. now Mary Hamlet; Mildred Capel, now Mildred
Latimer, and her children. Wesley Bunn and Seldeu I^timer, jr.; John T.
Hamlet and children, Ellle, John, Nola, and Bertie Hamlet; Frances A. Beavers,
party to the original judgment, and her children, Walter L., Beulah, Nora,
Rosebud, B. B., and Frank Beavers. Walter I^ Beavers reskled here from
1885 to 1886 and then returned in 1891 and remained here until 1894, and
Charles E. Moore the same. The following names constitute the list of those
who married descendants of Fannie Moore subsequent to 1876, and not In
aoQordance with the Indian laws, viz: J. S. Clayton. George McVeight and
Selden Latimer. The following names constitute the list of those who married
descendants of Fannie Moore prior to 1S76: B. C. Wigand and XJ^ Crabtree.
igi ize y g
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 381
I therefore reconimencl that the descendants of Fannie Moore who reside
in the Indian Territory and those who have married descendants in accord-
ance with the laws of the Chickasaw Nation, or were married prior to 1876, of
Fannie Moore, be admitted as members of the tribe of said nation. I recom-
mend that those descendants who are nonresidents be denied enrollment; also,
those who have married descendants of Fannie Moore since 1876 and not in
accordance with the laws of the Chickasaw Nation be denied enrollment.
W. H. L. Campbell,
Master in Chancery,
Marked filed October 9, 1897.
The court having been advised fully in the premises, and having heard the
argument of counsel, was of the opinion that the same should be in all things
confirmed and made the judgment of this court, except where it is denied to
J. S. Clayton, S. McVeigh, and Selden I^timer the right to be admitted and
enrolled as Chickasaw Indians, and in so far it is considered by the court that
the same should be reformed. The court did, therefore, find that all of the
parties plaintiff hereinafter named are Chickasaw Indians by blood, except
said J. S. Clayton, S. McVeigh, Selden Latimer, B. C. Wigand, and J. L. Crab-
tree, who the court finds are intermarried citizens. And further that those
mentioned in section 1 do now and always have resldeil within the limits of the
Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations, Ind. T., but that those mentioned in section 2
do now and always have resided beyond the limits of the Indian Territory.
Section 1. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that
0. A. Wigand, B. C. Wigand, Joseph C. Moore, sr., and his wife, Mary A. Moore ;
C. E. Moore, John C. Moore, Mary Mede Clayton (n^ Moore), Clara E. Clayton*
Harvey Adams Moore, Edna Moore, Joe Clay Moore, jr., and his wife, Irene
Moore; Glennie Moore, Joseph Newburn Moore, John 8. Layman, J. C. Womack
and his wife, Mra J. C. Womack (n^ layman) ; Gladys Womack, John F.
Moore and his wife, Mrs. Mary T. Moore; Susie McVeigh (n6e Moore), Coll)ert
Moore, Adelia Moore, Alfred Moore. Wyat Moore, Guy McVeigh, Arthur
McVeigh, Harvey B. Moore, and his wife, Mrs. Eva Moore; C. J. Moore, Ollle
Moore, Gertrude Moore, Fred Moore, J. L. Crabtree, A. B. Crabtree and his
wife, Mattie Crabtree; Lee Crabtree, Abbie Crabtree, Wesley Crabtree. Nora
Crabtree, Eddie Crabtree, Ctrarley Crabtree, L. D. Crabtree, J. M. Crabtree aod
Ws wife, Lavinia C. Crabtree; Juanita Crabtree, Minnie Crabtree, Alley B.
Crabtree, Laura R Crabtree. Emma A. Crabtree. Mrs. Zue Capel Cox, Stanley
Cap^, Minnie Capel, D. A. Parker, May M. Parker, Samuel A. Parker, Robert
C. Parker. Charles E. Parker, Agnes G. Parker. Douglas A. Parker, J. S.
Clayton, George McVeigh are and were at all times heretofore during their
natural lives Chickasaw Indians by blood, except J. S. Clayton, S. McVeigh^
Selden Latimer, B, C. Wigand, and J. L. Crabtree, who are adjudged to be
intermarried citizens of the Chickasaw Nation and residents of the Inflian
Territory, and as such are now and have l>een entitled to all the immunities,
grants, and privileges extended to or belonging to others of the tribe of Ohioka-
saw JLndians by reason of said tribal relations, and that they are entitled to
be enrolled as Chickasaw Indians by blood and the same Is now hereby ordered
to be d(Hie. And further that they do have and recover of and from the Chicka-
saw Nation all costs expended in this behalf, for which let execution issue.
Sec. 2. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decree<l by the court that Maiy
Pack (n6e Moore), Emma Pack, Hattie Pack, J. C. Fllppen, W. M. Pack, Eva
Pack, Mary Hamlet (n^e Capel), Mildred Latimer (u^e Capel), Wesley Bunn,
Selden Latimer, jr.. John T. Hamlet, Ellle Hamlet, John Hamlet. Nola Hamlet,
Bertie Hamlet. Francis A. Beavers. Walter L. Beavers, Beulah Beavers, Nora
Beavers, Rosebud Beavers, B. B. Beavers, Frank Beavers, are now and were
at all times heretofore during their natural lives Chickasaw Indians by blood,
but are not and have not been residents of the Chickasaw or Choctaw Nation,
Ind. T., and are therefore not entitled to the privileges, grants, and immunities
extended to such Chickasaw Indians within the Indian Territory, and are not
sptitled to be enrolled as such, and it is so ordered; and that they go )iaiice
without day, and that the Chickasaw Nation do have and recover of and from
said parties all costs expended in their behalf, for which let execution Issue.
Sec. It Is further ordered by the court that this judgment be certified for
the .observance of Uie Dawes Commission, and to the authorities of the CSilcka*
^w .Nation, and that their said rolls be revised, corrected, and coustmct^ In
accordance with this decree.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
332 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
United States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District.
I. C. M. Campbell, clerk of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be
a true copy of an order by said court on the 27th day of May, 1899, as appears
from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, at my office in Ardmore,
in said district, this 26th day of February, 1903.
[seal.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
N. H. McCoT, Deputy.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of the judgment of the court dated April 10, 1899, on file in this office
in the matter of the claim of Fannie Moore et al. for enrollment as members
of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians.
J. George Wbight,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
W. H. Angell,
Clerk in charge of Chickasaw Recprds.
Dated at Muskogee, Okla., this 17th day of October, 1910.
Lou BUMOARNER ET AL., ChOCTAWS.
Commission memorandum No. 226. Dawes No. 620.
September 8, 1896. Application was made to the Dawes C!ommis-
sion for the enrollment of George A. Bumgamer, stepson of the
principal applicant, as a citizen by blood.
The record shows that the answer of the Choctaw Nation was filed,
but said answer does not appear among the papers.
December 2, 1896. Decision of the commission in words and figures
AS follows, to wit :
" Denied." No appeal taken from this decision.
December 1, 1905. Petition was filed for the enrollment as citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation of Lou Bumgamer, John H. Bum-
gamer, Lee Bumgamer, William Bumgamer, Annie Bumgamer,
Pink Bumgamer, Bob Bumgamer, minor children of Lou Bum-
gamer, and George A. Bumgamer, stepson of Lou Bumgamer.
The sworn statement of the principal applicant attached to the
petition sets out that she was bom in the Choctaw Nation on the
16th day of May, 1867; that her great grandfather Stevens was a
-white man who married a full-blood Choctow woman who became
the mother of Jesse Stephens, grandfather of applicant, and through
whom she inherits her Choctaw blood; that applicant's mother
married S. P. Shirley, father of applicant; that she left the Choctaw
Nation when a little girl but returned in 1880 and had lived con-
tinuously in ttie Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations ever since; that
she married Hubbard Bumgamer under the Choctaw law, and that
the above-named children were born in lawful wedlock ; that she and
her children were enrolled upon the Choctaw tribal rolls by the
Choctaw revisory board January 14, 1897; that she had not made
application to the commission, as she did not know the necessity of
it and thought her citizenship complete.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 33^
Attached to the petition was the following certificate :
981, John H. Bumgarner ; 982, Lee Bumgamer : 983, George Bumgarner ; 984,
William Bumgarner; 985, Annie Bnmgnrner: 986, Pink Bnmgamer; 987, Bob
Bmngamer.
This is to certify that the above names were enrolled on the legal citizenship
of the Choctaw Nation by the chief commissioner board at Tuskahoma.
This January 14, 1897.
A. B. DuBANT, Chairman,'
P. Davis A. Homeb, Clerk.
This is to certify that A. B. Durant Is the dnly appointed chairman of the
board of census commissioners appointed under an act of the General Council
of the Choctaw Nation, passed at the regular session of 1896, for the purpose
of enrolling citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Choctaw Nation at the city of
Caddo, Ind. T., this the 23d day of January, 1897.
[SEAL.] Solomon J. Homeb,
National Secretary, Choctaw Nation.
Indorsed on the back as follows :
296 filed for record April 18, 1898, 3 p. m.
C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
There is also attached a certificate of C. M. Campbell, clerk of
the United States court for the southern district of the Indian Terri-
tory, that the above certificate of enrollment was filed for record in
his office on the date indicated.
January 8, 1906. The commissioner reported to the secretary that
the names of applicants were found on the tribal rolls with the nota-
tion opposite, "Enrolled without authority of law," and that as it
did not appear that application had been made for their enrollment
prior to December 25, 1902, he recommended that applicants be ad-
vised that he was without authority to receive their application.
(Copy hereto attached.)
February 10, 1906. The department concurred in the recom-
mendation of the commissioner, and denied the petition.
March 8, 1906. Motion for review filed with department, in which
the following reasons were assigned therefor :
1. That the record showed that her application was made December 1, 1905
(date fixed by act of Apr. 26, 1906), and that applicants were on the tribal rolls.
2. That applicants had no knowledge of the notation having been made upon
the tribal rolls opposite their names; that it was made without their consent
or notice to them.
3. That it was not shown when said indorsement was made, or by whom,
whether placed thereon by authority or by some person maliciously.
4. That said notation Is a legal conclusion of some clerk of the commission
or oflacer of the nation.
5. That under the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General In the case of
William A. Thompson the action of the revisory board in enrolling applicants
was legal.
April 17, 1906. Department referred said motion to the commis-
sion with directions that the same be adjudicated in accordance with
the act of CJongress approved April 26, 1906.
June 18, 1906. Proceedings were had before the commissioner,
and Lou Bumgarner testified that she had made no application in
person or by letter prior to December 1, 1905; that applications had
not been made for the enrollment of any of the applicants prior to
that time, except as to George A. Bumgarner, for whom application
was made September 8, 1896.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
334
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
October 1, 1906. Decision of the commissioner rendered, holding
that no application had been made within the time prescribed by law
(prior to Dec. 1, 1905), except as to George A. JBamngarner, and
that his case be determined upon its merits. .
October 16, 1906. Separate decision of the commissioner ordering
the enrollment of George A. Bumgarner as a citizen by blood.
•January 19, 1907. Ihe commissioner forwarded to the Secretary
a schedule of enrolled citizens for his approval, said schedule con-
taining the name of George A. Bumgarner.
February 28, 1907. The Secretary affirmed the action of the com-
missioner, refusing to consider application of Lou Bumgarner et al.
March 4, 1907. Secretarv disapproved schedule of citizens c<mi-
taining name of George A. bumgarner.
TRIBAL ENROLLMENT.
The following is a certified copy of that portion of the 1896 tribal
roll containing names of applicants :
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Cyonnsel for clamants respectfully submit that the birth of applicants in the
Choctaw Nation, of Choctaw parentage, their continuous residence In said
notion, and enrollment by the leisal authority of the Choctaw Nation, entitles
them to consideration by the Congress of the United States, to the end that
they be restored to those rights of which they were deprived by the unau-
thorised and culpable action of the chief clerk of the former Commissioner to
the Five Civilized Tribes, William O. Beall, In first making a pencil notatiou
upon the tribal rolls that the applicants were enrolled without authority <rf
law, and then in falling to inform the Secretary that such notation was so
made by him.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the tribal officials, upon the last
day of the authority of the commissioner to receive applications, made appli-
cation to the commission for the enrollment of all persons whose names
appeared upon the tribal rolls, and who had not theretofore applied. It would
appear that the department considered the blanket application made by the
tribal officers as not applying to these people, l)eacuse the conclusion was clear
from the report of the commissioner that they had never been legally enrolled.
Had this concealment of fact and suppression of information been known to
the department, applicants herein would now be In possession of their property.
Those entitled to enrollment are: Lou Bumgarner, John Bumgarner, Lee
Bumgarner, William Bumgarner, Annie Bumgarner, Pink Bumgarner, Bob
Bumgarner, George A. Bumgarner.
Respectfully submitted.
Waltee S. Field,
Attorney for Claimants.
Census roll of Choctaw Nation.
Head Of family.
ChUdren.
No.
Males.
Females.
Age.
Relation
to head of
fiMnny.
■ Remarks.
1681
16S5
1686
1687
Bumgarner, Jno.W.
•
Bumcamer. Geo
Enroltedwjtb.
Bumgarner, Wm
> out author-
Bumgarner, Annie. .
ity of law.
Bumgarner, Pink
Bumgarner, Bob
1
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 335
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to tlie enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the distribution of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of that por-
tion of page 41 of the '* Census roll of Choctaw Nation," BJue County, taken
November, 1896, showing the tribal enrollment of the persons whose names
appear opposite Nos. 1681 to 1687, both inclusive, together with blue lead pencil
notation appearing on the margin thereof opposite said names.
Muskogee, Okla., November 1, 1910.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five CiviHzed Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in charge of Choctaw Records.
Depabtment of the Interior,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Muskogee, Ind. T., January 8. J 906.
The honorable the Sf.cretary of the Interior.
Sib: On December 6, 1905 (I. T. D. 11827-1906), the Secretai^ of the In-
terior referred to this office for re|)ort n petition of Chester Howe in the matter
of the claim of Mrs. Ix)u Baumgamer and her children to enrollment as citizens
of the Choctaw Nation ; also statement of Mrs. Lou Baumgamer and certificate
ot A. R. Durant and Solomon J. Homer to the enrollment of John H. Baum-
gamer, Lou Brtimigarner, George Baumgamer, William Baumgamer, Annie
Baumgamer, Pink Baumgamer, mid Bob Baumgamer by the Choctaw revisory
board, January 14, 1897.
Reporting in this matter I have the honor to advise that the names of
Jno. W. Baumgamer, Lou Baumgamer, George Baumgamer, William Baum-
gamer, Annie Baumgamer, Pink Baumgamer, and Bob Baumgamer appear
upon the 1896 census roll of the citizens of the Choctaw Nation, Blue County,
opposite Nos. 1681 to 1687 inclusive, respectively, and that opposite their name
l8 the notation: "Enrollment without authority of law."
I have further to report that It does not appear from the records of this
office that application has been made by or on behalf of the persons above
named for enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw Nation prior to December
26, 1902.
It is alleged In the statement of Mrs. Lou Baumgamer accompanying the
petition of Chester Howe that she is a citizen by blood (of the Choctaw Nation)
and has resided in the Choctaw countiy since February, 1880; that she made
no application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes not knowing that
any necessity existed therefor and believing that her citizenship was complete,
and that she did not know until recently that her citizenship was contested.
I have therefore to recommend, inasmuch as no application was made to the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes prior to December 25, 1902. for enroll-
ment as citizens of the Choctaw Nation of Mrs. Baumgamer and her children
above named, that Mr. Howe be advised that under the provisions of the act
of Congress approved July 1, 1902, there is now no authority for the reception
of original applications for enrollment in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations.
The petition of Chester Howe is herewith returned.
Respectfully,
(Signed) Tams Bixby,
Commissioner.
(Through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.)
A. A. Spring et al., Choctaws by Blood.
The Choctaw tribal roll of 1896 shows:
No. 11801, Angus A. Spring, by blood; No. 15083, Dora Sprinff,
by marriage: No. 11802, Cloteal Spring, by blood: No. 11803, Edith
Spring, by blood; No. 11894, Earl Spring, by blood; No. 11805,
Bemice Spring, by blood; No. 11806, Letnce Spring, by blood, as
citizens of the Choctaw Nation. . r^r^rno
Digitized by VjOOV Ic
336 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Above enrollment was bv the Choctaw revisory board in Janu-
ary, 1897.
1886-7. Spring applied to the Choctaw council for admission to
citizenship; said application was referred to the committee, which
reported it favorably, but no action was taken by the council on .^aid
report.
September 9, 1896. Original application made to the Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes for admission as citizens by blood of
the Choctaw Nation.
December 8, 1896. Application rejected by the commission. No
decision. Marked " Denied." Appeal taken to the United States
court for the central district of the Indian Territory.
June 22, 1897-July 15. 1897. Judgment of United States court
admitting applicants to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation.
December 17, 1902. Judgments of United States court annulled
by decree of citizenship court in test case.
March 6, 1903. Record filed in citizenship court for trail de novo.
November 28, 1904. Decree of citizenship court denying appli-
cants enrollment.
February 6, 1906. Petition filed for the enrollment of applicants
as citizens of the Choctaw Nation on the ground that they nad been
duly enrolled by the board of census commissioners of the Choctaw
Nation appointed under the act of the Choctaw council of 1896, and
therefore neither the commission in 1896, or United States court on
appeal, or citizenship court, had any jurisdiction to deny them en-
rollment as citizens. This petition was filed and considered under
the ruling of the department in the Lula West case, which estab-
lished their right to enrollment.
February 15, 1907. Decision of the Commissioner to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes that the applicants should be enrolled as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation, and their names placed upon schedule for approval
by Secretary. (See " Exhibit A.")
February 19, 1907. Opinion of Attorney General, which was con-
strued by the department as holding that the decisions of the citizen-
ship court were final.
March 1, 1907. Department reversed commissioner's decision of
February 15, 1907, and disapproved schedule containing names of
applicants.
April 5, 1909. Report containing all the facts in this case made
by commiasioner to Secretary.
Attached hereto are the following exhibits :
1. Certificate of Solomon J. Homer, national secretary Choctaw
Nation, of enrollment of claimants. (Exhibit B.)
2. Certificates of Green McCurtain, orincipal chief, Choctaw Na-
tion, certifying claimants are enrollea members Choctaw Nation.
(Exhibit C.)
3. Appointment A. A. Spring Choctaw school trustee. (Exhibit
D.)
4. Designatfon of Edith Spring as pupil, Choctaw School, Tuska-
homa Institute. (Exhibit E.)
Respectfully submitted.
Waltek S. Tuld,
-Attorney for Claimants.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 337
Exhibit A.
Muskogee, Ind. T., February Id, U)07,
A. A. Spring. Ryan, Ind, T.
Deab Sir: Inclosed herewith you will And ji copy of the decision of the Com-
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, rendered February 15. 1fM>7. granting
the application for the enrollment of Angus A. Spring, Cloteal Spring, Edith
Spring, Earl Spring, Bernlce Spring, and Letrice Spring as citizens by blood
of the Choctaw Nation and for the enrollment of Dora Spring as a citizen by
intermarriage of said nation.
You are hereby advised that the names of Angus A. Spring. Cloteal Spring.
Edith Spring, Earl Spring. Bernlce Spring, and Letrice Spring will be placed
upon the next schedule of citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation and the
name of Dora Spring will be placed upon the next schedule of citizens by Inter-
marriage of said nation.
Respectfully, Tams Bixby, Commissioner.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of tlie Choctaw. Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of si id
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of letter
from Commissioner Tams Bixby to A. A. Spring, dated February 15, 1907.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Anoell, Clerk.
Department of the Interior,
Commissions^ to the Five Civilized Tribes.
%
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Angus A. Spring et al.
as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
DECISION.
It appears from the census-card record in this case that, on August 18, 1899,
application was made to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, by Angus
A. Spring, for the enrollment of himself and his five minor children, Cloteal,
Edith, Earl. Bernlce, and Letrice Spring, as citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife, Dora Spring, as a citizen by inter-
marriage of said nation.
It appears from the records of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
that on September 9, 1896. In the case entitled "A. A. Spring et al. v, Choctaw
Nation" (1896 Choctaw citizenship docket case No. 1383), original application
was made to said commission under the provisions of the act of Congress
approved June 10, 1896 (29 Stats., 321), for the admission to citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation of A. A. Spring, (Cloteal Spring, Edith Spring, Earl Spring,
Bernlce Spring, and Letrice Spring as citizens by blood of said nation, and
that, on December 8, 1896, said commission rendered Its decision therein deny-
ing said application.
From this decision an appeal was taken to the United States court for the
central district of Indian Territory, which court, on June 22, 1897, and July 15,
1897. rendered Judgments admitting A. A. Spring, Cloteal Spring. Edith Sprhig,
Earl Spring, Bernlce Spring, and letrice Spring as citizens by blood of the
CJhoctaw Nation, and Dora Spring, wife of A. A. Spring, as a citizen by inter-
marriage of said nation. Dora Spring, however, was not an applicant before
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes in 1890.
December 17, 1902, the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, created
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats..
(541). "set aside, annulled, vacated, and held for naught*' the aforesaid judg-
ments of the United States court for the central district of the Indian
Territory.
Said cause was subsequently certified to said Choctaw and Chickasaw citi-
zenship court for a trial de novo, and on November 28. 1904, In the case entitled
"A. A. Spring et al. v, Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations" (Choctaw-Chickasaw
citizenship court case, No. 20, McAlester docket), rendered Its decision therein,
C02S2-13 22 Digitized by UOOgie
338 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
wherein it was "ordered, adjudped, and decreed that the petition of the phnn-
tiffs, A. A. Sprinj?, Dora Spring. Cloteal Spring:. Edith Spring (or Edeith
Spring), Earl Spring, Bernlce Spring, I^trice Spring (or Letrie Spring) ♦ ♦ ♦
be denied, and that they be declared not citizens of the Choctaw Nation,
and not entitled to enrollment as such citizens, and not entitled to any rights
whatever flowing therefrom."
Under the regulations adopted by the Connnissioner to the Five Olvilized
Tribes January 2, 3906, there was filed on February 6, 1906, by Cruce. Cruce ft
Bleakmore, attorneys at law. Ardmore, Ind. T.. a petition praying for the
enrollment of A. A. Spring. Dora Spring. Cloteal Spring, Edith Spring, Earl
Spring, BuiTiice Spring, and I^trice Spring as citizens of the Choctaw Nation,
It l>eing alleged therein that said applicants "were duly enrolled as members
of the Choctaw Nation by the board of census commissioners for the Choctaw
Nation, apiK>inted in accordance with an act of the general council of said
nation hi the year 3.S06." Said petitioners are identical with the ]>ei*»onF for
whom application had lieen made for enrollment as citizens of the Choct^iw
Nation under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 2S, 1.S9S (.TO
Stata. 495 >.
The applicants. Cloteal, E<lith, Earl. Bernlce, and Letrice Spring, are the
children of the applicants. Angus A. Spring and Dora Spring. Dora Spring
claims her right to enrollment as a citizen by Intermarriage of the Choctaw
Nation by virtue of her marriage on November 15. 1877, to Angus A. Spring,
both of said persons at the time of said marriage being residents of the State
of TiOuisiana.
Upon an examination of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation in the iwsses-
slon of this office it appears that the applicants. Angus A. Spring, Dora Spring,
Cloteal Spring, Edith Spring, Earl Spring, Bernlce Spring, and I^trlce Spring,
are Identified upon the 1896 Choctaw census roll opposite Nos. 11801. 15083,11802,
11K03, 11804, 11805, 11806, respectively, as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, their
names having been placed thereon by the Choctaw revisory board in January,
1891.
On the api)earnnce of the princliml applicant, Angus A. Spring, before this
office on January 14, 1907, he testified that he was 48 years of age. and was bom
in the State of I^ulsiana; that he removed to the Indian Territory in 1882, and
that in 1886 or 1887 he made application to the Choctaw council for admission
to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation; that said. petition was referred to a com-
mittee which reported the same favorably, but that no action was ever taken by
the Choctaw council thereon; that he was the son of John S. "Spring, a Choctaw
by blood, who died in 1905 at the age of 71 or 72 years, and Drusilla Spring, a
white woman; that John S. Spring was the son of William Spring and Mary
Franklin, quarter-blood Choctaws, who, he had been informed, originally, re-
sided in the State of Mississippi: that Mary Franklin was the daughter of
Henry Franklin, a one-half blood Choctaw; and that said Henry Franklin was
the son of Thomas JeflTerson Franklin, a full-blood Choctaw Indian.
All of the applicants herein were residents in. good faith of the Indian Terri-
torv on June 28, 1898.
I am of the opinion that following the niling of the department in the rase
of William C. Thompson et al. (T. T. D. 4242-1906) the action of the Commis-
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes in 1896, and the subsequent action of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, was without authority of law, and
of no force or eflfect upon the status of the applicants; that Angus A. Spring.
Cloteal Spring. Edith Spring, Earl Spring, Bernlce Spring, and I^etrice Spring
should be enrolled as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation; and that Dora
Spring should be enrolled as a citizen by intermarriage of said nation under
the provisions of the acts of Congress approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stats., 495),
and July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., 641), and it is so ordered.
Tams Bixby, Oommi^Honrr,
Muskogee, Ind. T., Fehniary /5, J9H7.
This is to certifj' that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrolhnent of the members of the Choctaw. Chickasaw, (Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of decision
in the matter of the application for the enrollment of Angus A. Spring et al. as
citizens of the Choctaw Nation. ^ ^ ^
J. Geo. Wright.
OomtmUsioner to the P%ve Civilized TrihcK,
By W. H. Anoell, Clerk,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 339
Exhibit B.
A. A. Spring, age 38 years.
Dora Spring, age 34 years.
Cloteal Spring, age 15 years.
Edith Spring, age 13 years.
Earl Spring, age 11 years.
Bemlce Spring, age 9 years.
Letrice Spring, age 2 years.
This is to certify that the above names are properly enrolled by the chief
commissioners at Tuskahoma on the legal citizenship roll of the Choctaw
Nation.
This the loth day of January, 1897.
A. R. Dub AWT, Chairman.
This is to certify that A. R. Durant is the duly appointed chairman of the
board of census commissioners, appointed under an act of the general council
passed at the regular session thereof in 1896, for the purpose of enrolling
citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Choctaw Nation this 23d day of
January. 1897.
[SEAL.] SOLOMAI7 J. HOMRR,
yational Secretary, Choctaw Nation,
Exhibit C.
Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory:
I, (Jreen McCurtaiu, principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby certify
that I am custodian of the revised rolls of the members of the Choctaw Na-
tion, compiled in pursuance of an act of the Choctaw council approved October.
1896, and that on the book of said rolls containing the names of the citizens of
the Choctaw Nation by blood, on page 305, the name of A. A. Spring, age 38
years; Cloteal Spring, age 15 years; Edith Spring, age 13 years; Earl Spring,
age 11 years ; Bemlce A. Spring, age 9 years ; Letrice Spring, age 2 years, resid-
ing In the Chickasaw district, appear as members by blood of the Choctaw
Nation,
Witness my hand and seal this the 19th day of June, 1897.
[seal.] Green McCubtaiN,
Principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation.
Wallace Bond,
Private Secretary,
Choctaw Nation, tndian Territory:
I. Green McCurtain, principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby certify
that I am custodian of the revised rolls of the members of the Ohoctaw Nation
compiled In pursuance of an act of the Choctaw council approved October, 1896,
and that on the book of said rolls containing the names of the citizens of the
Choctaw Nation by Intermarriage, on page 400, the name of Dora Sprltig, age
36 years, residing In the Chickasaw district, appears as member by intermar-
riage of the Choctaw Nation.
Witness my hand and seal this the 19th day of June, 1897.
[SEAL.] GfiEEN McCtJRTAiN,
Principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation.
Wallace Bond,
Private Secretary.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
340 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Exhibit D.
Office of Trustee of Third District,
Choctaw Nation.
To tchom it may concern:
Keposing special trust and confidence in the ability and integrity of A. A.
Spring, I hereby designate and appoint him local trustee of Durant Ck>llege,
neighborhood school, situated in Blue County, in the third district, Cboctaw
Nation. Therefore he, the said A. A. Spring, is hereby authorized to employ a
teacher, licensed by the proper authority, for Siiid school, and to make true
report of the attendance at said school monthly to this office, and is required to
visit his school once in' each month.
Given under my hand and seal of office this, the 22d day of August, 1S98.
[seal.] B. S. Smiseb,
Trustee Third District, Choctaw Nation.
Exhibit E.
GooDLAND, IND. T., September 6, 1899.
Miss Edith Spring, Durant, Jnd. T.
Edith Spring: You have been selected to attend Tuskahoma Institute.
Please report at said school at once, presenting this caixi to the superintendoit
School opened September 4, 1899.
S. B. Spring, Trustee No. S District.
Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., County of Pickens:
I, A. J. Lewis, clerk of the county court of Pickens County, Chickasaw Nation,
Ind. T., do hereby certify that the foregoing original rent contract between
A. A. Spring and Jim Gardner is duly on file in my office.
Given under my hand and seal of office, this 7th day of March, 1892.
A. J. Lewis,
County Clerk, Pickens County, Chickasaw Nation.
Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., County of Pickens:
I, A. J. Lewis, clerk of the county court of Pickens County, Chickasaw Nation,
Ind. T., do hereby certify that the foregoing original rent contract between
A. A. Spring and H. J. Pool is duly on file in my office.
Given under my hand and seal of office, this 7th day of March, 1892.
[seal.] a. J. Lewis,
County Clerk, Pickens County, Chickasaw Nation.
Office of CoiiLKCTOB of Permits,
Pickens (jountt, Chickasaw Nation,
This is to certify that J. H. Neely has complied with the late permit law,
and is registered accordingly as being under employ of A. A. Spring for 12
months from January 1, 1894, as a farmer.
H. H. McLane,
Permit Collector.
$5.00.
A. A. Spring, age 38. male.
Cloteal Spring, age 15. female.
Edith Spring, age 13, female.
Earl Spring, age 11, male.
Lutrice Spring, age 2, female.
Bemice Spring, age 9, female.
This is to certify that the above names were enrolled on the legal citizenship
of the Choctaw Nation (p. 53) by the chief commissioner's board at Tuska-
homa, January 14, 1897.
Davis A. Homes, Secretary.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 341
Joseph W. Gamlin et al., Choctaws, 606.8.
Court No. (southern district) 148. Citizenship court No. (Tisho-
mingo) 107.
This case has been fully covered by the report of Mr. Howell, an
assistant in the office of the Assistant Attorney General for the De-
partment of the Interior, and also the report of the Commissioner
to the Five Civilized Tril3es to the department under date of April
29, 1909.
The names of the leading claimants appear on the 1896 Choctaw
roll, Atoka and Blue Counties, opposite the following numbers :
Amanda L. Keed, 4920; Lovie F. Scott, 11693; Hattie M. Scott,
11694; Minnie R. Scott, 11696; Arche M. Scott, 11695; Eliza Ann
Gamblin, 4915; Joseph W. Gamblin, 4916; Emma Gamblin, 4917;
Indianola Gamblin, 4918; James W. Gamblin, 4919; Hattie L.
Gamblin, 4921.
The Choctaw revisory board in January, 1897, enrolled the fol-
lowing persons opposite the following numbers, as will more par-
ticularly appear n*om the copy of a certified copy showing their en-
rollment, hereto attached :
1114, John H. Gamblin; 1115, Anna Gamblin; 1116, Joseph Gam-
blin; 1117, Emma Gamblin; 1118, Indianola Gamblin; 1119, Walter
Gamblin; 1120, Amandy Gamblin; 1121, Hattie Gamblin; 1122,
Orange Daurance; 1128, Dynk Lvsle; 1124, Dvce Daurance; 1125,
Hattie Tannic Reed; 1129, Arch Reed.
All the claimants herein applied to the Choctaw citizenship com-
mittee for enrollment under the act of June 10, 1896, and were en-
rolled by that committee, from which enrollment no appeal was taken
by the nation. Walter W. Jones, who made no application to the
Choctaw citizenship committee, applied for himself, his family, the
Gamblins, and Scotts under the act of June 10, 1896, to the Dawes
Commission, which had concurrent jurisdiction with the citizenship
committee, tor the enrollment of said applicants as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation, which application was rejected by said commission.
An appeal was taken by t\ alter W. Jones to the United States court
fiom the decision of the commission rejecting said claimants.
On January 17, 1898, the court entered judgment, adjudging the
following persons entitled to enrollment, certified copy of said judg-
ment being hereto attached :
Francis Jones, Brinley Wilburn Jones, William xVlbert Jones,
Rutherford Ferryman Jones, Mary Malinda Jones, ^Vmanda Melvina
Jones, Carrie Pemicia Jones, Eliza Ann Jones, John Gandy Jones,
Walter W. Jones, Fitzhugh Lee Jones, Rubie Estella Jones, Minnie
Mildred Jones, Charlie ilarion Jones, Minnie Cletus Jones, Capitola
Jones, Victoria Jones, Elizebeth May Jones, Sallie Fisher Jones, Wil-
liam James Jones, Garland Rutherford Jones, Rcandes Jones, Nellie
Rutherford Jones, Lovie Francis Scott, Hattie Myrtle Scott, Minnie
Roberta Scott, Archie McCoy Scott, Glennis Scott, James Walter
Gamblin, Joseph Wilburn Gamblin, Indianola Gamblin, Amanda
Lutoma Gamblin, Hattie Loving Gamblin, Robert J. Jones, Sallie M.
Jones, William Oscar Jones, George D. Jones, Walter J. Jones, Mary
A. Jones, Lilburn B. Jones, Pearlie V. Jones, Lizzie B. Jones, and
John H. Gamblin. ^
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
342 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
On October 15, 1898, the court entered the following corrective
judgment:
Walter W. Jones et al., plaintiffs, v. The Choctaw Nation, defendant No. 148.
Judgment
This cause coming on to be heard on this, the 15th day of October, 1898,
upon the motion of the plaintiffs herein to have the judgment heretofore ren-
dered in this cause corrected as to the names of Kra Eliza Ann Gamblin and
Mra Minnie Mildred Henson, and it appearing to the court that these parties
were admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation under the said judgment
as Eliza Ann Jones (her maiden name) and Minnie Mildred Jones (her
maiden name), whereas at the time of applying for dtizenshlp herein they
had married and their names were then Mrs. £Hiza Ann Gamblin and Mrs.
Miimie Mildred Henson, and that the erroneous naming of these imrtles oc-
curred in the drafting of the prsec^liie of the judgment herein and through no
fault of the applicants whatever.
And it appearing further that the said correction should, in justice to the
ubove parties, be made, in order that said judgment shonld speak the tnith,
It is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the judgment heretofore
rendered in this cause on the 17th day of January, 1898, be amended and cor-
rected as to the names of Eliza Ann Jones and Minnie Mildred Jones, so that
these parties be admitted in their true names, which are Mra Eliza Ann
Qamblin and Mrs. Minnie Mildred Henson; and the clerk of this court is
ordered and directed to certify a copy of this judgment to the Dawes Com-
mission, and said commission is ordered and directed to enroll said parties in
accordance with the amendments herein made.
HosEA TowNSEwn, Judpe,
Indian Tebbitoby, Bouthem District:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for tiie southern
district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify that the above and fore-
going is a true, perfect, and literal copy of the original judgment as appears
upon the journal of this court.
In testimony whereof witness my hand and official seal at my office in Ard-
more, Ind. T., this 15th day of October, 1898.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell,
Clerk UnUed States Court.
It will be observed that as to the Gamblins and Scotts that they
now were possessed of a double enrollment, being first enrolled by
the Choctaw Nation, through its citizenship committee, in 1897, and
second by judOTnent of the United States court in 1898.
December Iy, 1902. Decree of United States court vacated by
judgment of the Ghoctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court in the
'* test case." The case was subsequently certified to the Choctaw and
Chickasaw citizenship court for trial de novo.
November 28, 1904. Decree of Choctaw and Chickasaw citizen-
ship court denying all the applicants named above.
January 23, 1905. Commission entered orders dismissing the ap-
plications" for the enrollment of those claimants not denied by the
Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court^ for the reason that the
persons through whom they claimed had been denied by said court
February 6, 1906, February 20, 1906, March 6, 1900, March 9,
1906. Petitions were filed by these claimants praying for a rehear-
ing in their several cases under the ruling of tne depailment in the
Lula West case, and the cases were consolidated by the commissioner.
July 30, 1906. Further proceedings before the Commissioner to
the Five Civilized Tribes in this case and testimony taken.
Februarv 14, 1907. Decision rendered by commissioner admitting
the following persons: , ^^^.^
*=" * Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 343
James W. Gamblin, Hattie L. Gamblin, Benny Gamblin, Eliza
Ann Gamblin, Joseph W. Gamblin, Indianola Gamblin, Amanda L.
Gamblin, Archie Reed, Glen Reed, Liovie F. Scott, Hattie M. Scott,
Minnie R. Scott^ Archie M. Scott, Joseph A. Scott, James I. Scott,
(ilennis Scott, Emma Gamblin, Lillie Gamblin, Fred Gamblin, Roy
Scott, William Deral Skelton, Icy Skelton, Joseph Rexford Reed,
and denying John H. Gamblin and Maiy M. Jones as intermarried
citizens, and dismissing applications for Orange Dorrance, Icey Dor-
rance, George Scott, Arch Reed, for the reason that no application
had been made for their enrollment within the time provided by law.
The reason assigned by the commission for rejecting John H. Gam-
blin was that he was not married to Eliza Ann Jones (now Gamblin),
a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, according to Choctaw laws. They
were married in 18G7, in the State of Georgia, and long before the
Choctaws had any law requiring its citizens to marry under its laws.
Such a law was not enacted by the Choctaws until 1876. The com-
mission also found that Eliza Ann Jones (now Gamblin) was not
admitted to citizenship by the United States court. Both of these
holdings denying John H. Gamblin and his wife, Eliza Ann, were
clear error, as the records disclase. These erroneous findings oc-
curred in the closing days of the enrollment work, and when but
little time was afforded for the consideration of ca^es by the commis-
sion or the department.
As to Orange and Icey Dorrance, George Scott, and Arch Reed,
who were rejected by the commission in the above decision, all of
their names appear on the 1897 roll made by the revisory board of
the Choctaw Nation and all of them made application for enroll-
ment, therefore the holding, of the commission rejecting them was
equally erroneous.
February 15, 1907. Case forwarded department, together with
decision and schedules of citizens by blood and marriage of the Choc-
taw Nation containing the names of the persons admitted by de-
cision as follows :
Citizens by blood, Nos. 16181 to 16196, inclusive :
16181, Reed, Amanda L.; 16183, Reed. Archie; 10183, Reed,
Glenn; 16184, Scott, Lovie F.; 16185, Scott, Hattie M.; 16186, Scott,
Minnie R.; 16187, Scott, Archie M.; 16188, Scott, Glennis; 16189,
Scott, Joseph A.; 16190, Scott, James T.; 16191, Gamblin, Eliza
Ann: 1619*2, (lamblin, Joseph W. ; 16193, Gamblin, Indianola;
16194, Gamblin, James W.; 16195, Gamblin, Hattie L.; 16196, Gam-
blin, Benny.
Citizens by marriage, Nos. 1651 and 1652:
1651, Gamblin, Emma: 1652, (iamblin, Lillie.
Minor children by blood, Nos. 923 to 928, inclusive:
923, Skelton, William Deral; 924, Skelton, lev: 925, Gamblin.
Fred; 926, Scott, Roy; 927, Reed, Annie Kella: 928, Reed, Joseph
Rexford.
March 1, 1907. Department reversed the decision of commissioner
and disapproved the schedules above described under an opinion of
the Attorney General of the United States of February 12, 1907.
March 1, 1907. Department reversed the decision of commissioner
case in which his decision of February 19. 1907, was rendered, for
further consideration. It was then too late to make the reference,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
344 FI\^E CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
as the rolls were on that day closed by operation of law and the
injuries to claimants sustained by the decision of February 19, 1007,
was beyond recall under the then existing law.
March 1, 1909. Department requests report on this case.
April 29, 1909. Commissioner reports fully the facts in this case
to department.
June 1, 1909. Department held that the case was not analogous
to the Goldsby case and did not come within the purview of the
opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of November
30, 1908, and that no action could be taken looking to the enrollment
of the applicants.
Counsel respectfully represent that inasmuch as these applicants
were found by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes and
the United States court to be entitled to enrollment and as their en-
rollment was disapproved under an erroneous construction by the
department of an opinion of the Attorney General of the United
States of February 12, 1907, which was suosequently modified by an
opinion of the Attorney General of March 4, 1907, too late to be "used
in enrollment matters, these applicants should be enrolled.
Those entitled to enrollment are James W. Gamblin, Hattie L.
Gamblin, Benny Gamblin, Eliza Ann Gamblin, Joseph W. Gamblin,
Indianola Gamblin, Amanda L. Gamblin, Archie Reed, Glenn Reed,
Lovie F. Scott, Hattie M. Scott, Minnie R. Scott, Archie M. Scott
Joseph A. Scott, James I. Scott, Glennis Scott, Emma Gamblin,
Lillie Gamblin, Fred Gamblin, Roy Scott, William Deral Skelton.
Icy Skelton, Annie Kehla Reed, Joseph Rexford Reed, Orange
Dorrance, Icey Dorrance, Mary M. Jones, John H. Gamblin, George
Scott, Arch Reed.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field,
Attorney for Claimant,
1114. John H. Ganibliu.
1115. Annn Gamblin.
1116. Joseph Gamblin.
1117. Emma Gamblin.
1118 Indianola Gamblin.
1110. Walter Gamblin.
1120. Amamly Gamblin.
1121. Hattie Gamblin (Hattie Liivina Skelton).
1122. Oran^re Danrfince.
1123. Dynk Lysle.
1124. Dycie Daurance.
1125. Hattie Taiinie Reecl.
1129. Arch Reed.
This Is to certify that the foregoing: names were enrolled on the le^al citlssen-
ship roil of the Choctaw Nation by the chief commis.sloner.
This 14th day of January, 1897.
A. R. DURANT, Chairman.
This is to certify tluit A, R. Durant is the duly npix>inted chairman of the
board of census commissioners appointed In accordance with an act of the
general council of the Choctaw Nation passed at the regular session thereof
in 1896, for the purpose of enrolling citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
(Jiven under niv hand and the senl of the Choctaw Nation at the city of
Caddo, Ind. T., this the 2.3d day of January, 1S07.
[SEAL.] S0IX>M0N J. HOMER,
National f^ccrctary CJioctaw Nation.
Digitized by CjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 345
I hereby certify that the above and foresEfoing is a true copy of a certified
copy taken from the citizenship roll of the Choctaw Nut ion.
Given under my hand and seal this the 2d day of April, 1897.
rsEAL.l W. I. Gilbert, Xotanj PuhUc,
In the United States court for the Indian Territory, sc:>utheru district, at
Ardmore.
Walter W. Jones et nl., plalntilTs, v. Choctaw Nation, «lefendant. No. 148.
Judgment.
This case coming on to be heard on this the 17th day of January. 1898, upon
the pleadings, evidenct*. master's report and exceptions thereto, and it appearing
to the court therefrom that the parties hereinafter named are entitled to citizen-
ship in the Choctaw Nation of Indians and to have their names enrolled on the
rolls of said nation as members thereof, and it api)earlng further that they
have duly complied with the laws In the prosecution of ihelr application for
citizenship and have fully met every requirement therefor:
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the exceptions to the
master's report be overruled and the master's report be confirmed in all re-
spects, and that the following named parties be, and the same are hereby,
admitted to citizenship In the Choctaw Nation of Indians as citizens thereof
and their names be enrolled on the rolls of said nation, to wit :
Francis Jones, Rrlnkley WUbum Jones. William Albert Jones. Rutherford
Ferryman Jones, Mary Malinda Jones, Amanda Melvina Jones. Carrie Pernida
Jones, Eliza Ann Jones, John Gaudy Jones, Walter W. Jones. Fitzhugh Lee Jones,
Ruble Estella Jones, Minnie Cletus Jones, Capltola Jones. Victoria Jones, Eliza-
beth May Jones. Minnie Mildred Jones, Charlie Marion Jones. Sallle Fisher
JoneSf William James Jones, Garland Rutherford Jones, Reande?^ Jones, Nellie
Rutherford Jones, Ix)vie Francis Scott, Hattie Myrtle Scott, Minnie Roberta
Scott, Archie McCoy Scott. Glennls Scott, James Walter Gamblin, Joseph Wil-
bum Gamblin, Indianola Gamblin, Amanda Lutoma Gamblin. Hattie Lovlnla
Gamblin. Robert J. Jones. Sallle M. Jones, William Oscar Jones. George I>.
Jones,. Walter J. Jones. Mary A. Jones, Lllbum B. Jones, Pea rile V. Jones,
Lizzie B. Jones, and John H. Gamblin.
It is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged that all the said parties possess
and be permitted to exercise and enjoy all the lights, privileges, and Immunities
of citizens and members of the said Choctaw Nation of Indians.
And the clerk of this court is hereby ordered and dire<*ted to send a certified
copy of this judgment to the Dawes Commission forthwith.
HOSEA TOWNSKXD, JudffC.
Indorsed No. 148. WaPer W. Jones et al. r. Choctaw Nation. Filed In
open court. 1-17-98. C. M. Campbell, clerk. Entered on citizenship record,
page 209. V. G. Wynn and Thomas Norman, attorneys for applicants.
In the I'nited States court In the Indian Territory, southern district, at
Ardmore.
L C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court for the southern dls'rlct
in the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a
true, perfect, and literal copy of the decree of the court ent(M*ed In the above-
entitled action, made and entered on the journal thereof on the 17th day of
January. 1898.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said court,
at Ardmore, in said Territory, this 17th day of January, 1898.
[SEAL.1 C. yi. Campbell,
Clerk, United States Court, Southern District Indian Territory,
Digitized by VjOOQIC
346 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Nancy J. Cooper et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission, No. 1418. United States court, No. 9G. Citizen-
ship court, No. — .
Note. — This is one of the cases reported upon by J. W. Howell
as one of the meritorious cases. The names of all the claimants
except the new borns appear on the Choctaw tribal roll of 1896.
The enrollment of claimants w^as prevented by an adverse decision
of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court. Subsequently the de-
partment held that the citizenship court never acquired jurisdiction
of the case, and directed the enrolment of claimants. Their enroll-
ment was prevented by a misconstruction of the Attorney General's
decision of February 19, 1907, which was construed by the depart-
ment as holding that the decision of the citizenship court rejecting
claimants was final. On March 4, 1907, the Attorney General ren-
dered an opinion construing his opinion of February 19, 1907, under
which latter opinion claimants were held entitled to enrollment.
This latter opinion, of March .4, 1907, did not reach the department
imtil March G, 1907, or two days after the rolls were closed by opera-
tion of law. Tliere was then no authority in the Secretary, under
the law, to enroll them.
RECORD.
On the Choctaw tribal roll of 1896 appears the names of the follow-
ing persons opposite the following roll numbers :
1688, William B. Brown; 1691, William N. Brown; 1692, Nancy J.
Brown; 1701, Caswell M. Brown; 1702, Amanda Brown; 10518,
Polly Ann Peck; 10517, Andrew J. Peck; 1705, George G. Brown;
1706, Sarah Brown; 1689, Nancy A. Brown; 1690, Bettie McCarty;
1693, Sarah Johnson; 1694, Becky Brown; 1695, Mary Johnson;
1696', Mannie (or Minnie) Hudson; 1697, Alice Brown; 1698, George
Brown; 1699, Susie Brown; 1708 Maudie Brown; 1704, Willie Emma
Brown; 10519, Florence Peck: 10520, Oscar Peck; 10521, Benjamin
Peck; 10522, Andrew Peck; 9803, James R. Nichols; 9808, Nancv C.
Nichols; 9812, Orin M. Nichols; 9818, Amanda M. Nichols; 9809,
John W. B. Nichols; 9810, Delia Mary Scott; 9811, Nancy V.
Nichols; 9814, James W. Nichols; 9815, Maggie M. Nichols; 9816,
Mettie Myrtle Nichols; 9817, Lonie A. Nichols.
Septeniber 9, 1896. Application filed with commission for the
enrollment of Nancy Cooper and 100 other applicants as Choc*taws
by blood or intermarriage, all claiming througn John Cooper, whose
name appears on the Choctaw muster roll of 1832, as a Choctaw
captain.
December 8, 1806. The commission denied the application for the
enrollment of said claimants, said decision being in words and
figures as follows : " Denied."
Case appealed to United States court, southern district, sitting at
Ardmore. Record before commission transmitted, and additional
testimony taken before master. Counsel for nations present and
cross-examined witnesses.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 347
December 20, 1807. Judgment was entered in this cause admitting
the following claimants as members of the Choctaw Tribe of
Indians :
Rebecca Brown (nee Cooper), William Knighton Brown, Caswell
Clarion Brown, Polly Ann Peck (nee Brown), George G. Brown.
Nancy Allice Brown, Bettie Brown, Sarah Brown, Becky BrownJ
Mary Brown, Mamie Brown, Alice Brown, George Brown, 8usie
Brown, Maudie Brown, Willie Brown, Florence Peck, Oscar Peck,
Benjamin Grant Peck, Andrew Peck, Willie Enwna Brown, Arty
Mincy Sandei*s, John Xewton Sanders, Jessie Wilson Sanders, Joseph
Munroe Sanders, Elijah McFadden Sanders, Mary Sanders, Monroe
Sanders, Amanda Menirva Sanders, Joseph" Ostin Sanders, William
Xewton Sanders, Thomas Wilson Sanders, Minnie Racheal Sanders,
Nancy Ellen Sanders, James Sanders, John M. Sanders, Joseph M.
Sanders, Izey May Sanders, William Eercell Sanders, Mincy Rey-
nolds Sanders, James Bruton Nichols, Orin Mayberrv Nichols, John
William BefBe Nichols, Dell May Nichols, Nancy Velmor Nichols,
James Willis Nichols, Maggie May Nichols, Myrtle Nichols, Lonie
Alta Nichols, Polly Bowen (nee Cooper), Jane Campbell (nee
Cooper), William Houston Bowen. Greorge Washington Bowen,
Kosa Isabel Higgins (nee Bowen), Nancy Barthena Bowen, Jessie
Anderson Bowen, jr., Elizabeth Jane Bowen, James Spencer Bowen,
Eliza Jane Bowen. Leona May Bowen, Rosa Evelin Bowen, Jessie
Anderson Bowen, Williams Quitman Higgins, Nancy J. Long (n^
Bowen), Mandie Long, William Long, George I^ng, Sidney Long,
Pearley Long, Long, James Salathol Campbell, Leona Isabel
Campbell, Lucinda LoneTla Campbell, Walter Scott Campbell,
Amanda Jane Ofolter (nee Campbell), Charlie J. Ofolter, John F.
Ofolter, Amanda M. Ofolter, Mary Rebecca Martin (n^e Cooper),
Caldonia Mai'tin, James Henry Martin, George Washington Martin,
James Henry Martin, Rosa Clemy Martin, Nancy Cooper, William
Houston Cooper, Samuel H. Cooper, jr., John Cooper, Dora Ann
Cooper, William Bluford Brown, Andrew Jackson Peck, Nancy
Caroline Nichols. Kessiah Bowen.
March 12, 1808. Supplemental judgment entered admitting the
following persons as meml)ers of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians!
Nancy Jane Brown, Sarah Brown, Lizzie Sanders, Martha Jane
Sanders, Sallie Sanders, Amanda Melvina Nichols, Mary Brown,
and Louisa Hiirgins.
September 28, 1898. Supplemental judgment was entered admit-
ting the following persons: Rosa Boen, Julia Ann Boen, and
Amanda Brown.
October 15, 1808. Supplemental judgment entered correcting
judgment of December 20, 1807, and admitting Robert Lawrence
Martin and John Roy Sanders, and correcting the name of
Ijong to Earl Long.
January 17, 1000. This cause came on before said court upon the
motion of the defendant to strike out of the judgment theretofore
rendered certain names improperly admitted to citizenship, and
said court being fully advised, ordered, that the following names:
Rebecca Brown (nfe ("oopor), Susie Brown, William Ercell Sanders,
Mincy Reynolds Sanders, Earl Long, James Henry Martin (where
this name appears the second time). Martha Jane Sanders. Andrew
Jackson Peck, Ix)uisa Higgins, John Rov Sanders, Nancy Jane Boen,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
348 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Sallie Sanders, Bettie Brown, Becky Brown, Nancy J. Long, Rosa
Boen, be stricken from said former judgment.
And thereupon came on to be heard the motion of plaintiffs to
correct the judgment rendered herein as to the name Pearly Long,
also praying that certain original applicants' names be ordered
enrolled as citizens, having been by oversight or mistake left out
of the original judgment heretofore rendered in this case; and the
said court being well and fully advised in-the premises ordered that
the following named parties be admitted to citizenship in the Choc-
taw Nation: Earl Long (son of T. T. Long), Sarah Boen, Nancy
Jane Brown, Sarah Brown, Julia Ann Boen, Amanda Brown.
Lizzie Sanders, Amanda M. Nichols, Marv Boen, Robert Lawrence
Martin, Rebecca E. Brown, and Rebecca C. Brown.
The judgment as thus re-formed, as shown bj^ the records of the
Dawes Commission, volume 3, Citizenship Cases, pages 340 to 342.
are as follows:
Nancy Alice Brown, Rebecca E. Brown, Jane Campbell, James
Salathol Campbell, Lonie Isabel Campbell, Lucinda Lonella Camp-
bell, Walter Scott Campbell, Polly Bowen (nee Cooper), William
Houston Bowen (or Boen), Kessiah Bowen (or Boen), Rosa Isabel
Higgins (nee Bowen), William Quitman Higgins, Jessie Ander^sou
Bowen, Julia Ann Bowen, Nancy Cooper (now deceased), Elizabeth
Jane Bowen, Nancy Barthena Bowen, James Spencer Bowen, George
Washington Bowen, Mary Bowen, Leona May Bowen, Rosa Eveline
Bowen, Jessie Anderson Bowen, jr., Eliza Jane Bowen, Polly Ann
Peck, Florence Peck, Oscar Peck, Benjamin Grant Peck, Andrew
Peck, Amanda Jane Of alter (nee Campbell), Charlie J. Of alter,
John F. Ofalter, Amanda M. Ofalter, William Knighten Brown,
Nancy Jane Brown, Sarah Brown, Rebecca C. Brown, Mary Brown,
Alice Brown, George Brown, Caswell M. Brown, Amanda Brown,
Mandie Brown, Willie Brown, Aiiy Minty Sanders, John Newton
Sanders, Mary Sanders, Monroe Sanders, William Newton Sanders,
Thomas Wilson Sanders, Minnie Racheal Sanders, Nancy Ellen
Sanders, Amanda Minerva Reynolds (nee Sanders), Joseph Oistiu
Sanders, Jesse Wilson Sanders, Lizzie Sanders, James R. Sanders,
John N. Sandei-s, Joseph M. Sanders, Izey May Sanders, Elijah
McFadden Sanders, Joseph Munroe Sanders, James Bmton Nichols,
Nancy Caroline Nichols, John William Beffle Nichols, Dell May
Nichols, Nancy Velmor Nichols, Orin Mayberry Nichols, Amanda
Melvina Nichols. James Willis Nichols, Maggie May Nichols, Myrtle
Nichols, Lonie Alta Nichols, Mandie Long, William Long, George
Long", Sidney Long, Pearley Long, William Bluford Brown, Geor^
G. Brown, Sarah Brown, Willie Emma Brown, Mary Rebecca
Martin, Caldonia Martin, James Henry Martin, George Washington
Martin, Robert Lawrence Martin, Rosa Clehiy Martin, Samuel H.
Cooper, William Houston Cooper, John Cooper, jr., Dora Ann
Cooper, Mamie Brown, Sarah Boen, and Earl Long.
Certified copies of judgments attached hereto marked " Exhibit
A-1," " Exhibit A-2," " Exhibit A-3," " Exhibit A-4,'' and '' Ex-
hibit A-5."
December 17, 1902. Judgments of the United States. court set
aside by decree of the citizenship court in test case. Record before
United States court certified to citizenship court. Additional testi-
mony taken on behalf of claimants.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CniLIZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 349
Xovember terni, 1904. Opinion by Foote, associate judge, holding
that if claimants are the descendants of Captain John Cooper, it has
"not been shown that he took land under the fourteenth article of the
treaty of 1830, nor has it been shown that their ancestors came to
Indian Territorj' immediately after the treaty of 1830, and that their
ancestors, as well as the claimants, resided continuously in the Choc-
taw^ Nation. Therefore they are not entitled to enrollment.
Xovember 29, 1904. Decree entered denying all of claimants citi-
zenship in the Choctaw Nation.
February 6, 190G. Petition filed with conmiission for the enroll-
ment of applicants as citizens of the Choctaw Nation under the ruling
in the Lula West case.
May 12, 1906. Hearing had on said petition.
August 13, 1906. The commission rendered a decision concluding
as follows:
riK>n an ex a mi nation of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation in the posses-
sion of this office, it appears that the applicants, William B. Brown, William X.
Brown, Nancy J. Brown, Caswell M. Brown, Amanda Brown, Polly Ann Peck,
Andrew J. Peck, George G. Brown, Sarah Brown, Nancy A. Brown, Betty
3IcCarty, Sarah Johnston, Becky Brown,' Mary Johnstcm, Mamie (or Minnie)
Hudson, Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie Brown, Maudie Brown. Willie
Brown, Florence Peck, Oscar Peck, Benjamin Peck. Andrew Peck, James B.
Nichols, Nancy C. Nichols, Grin M. Nichols, Amanda M. Nichols, John W. B.
Nichols, Delia May Scott, Nancy V. Nichols, James W. Nichols, Maggie M.
Nichols, Mettie Myrtle Nichols, and TiOnie A. Nichols, are identified upon the
1806 Choctaw census roll opi>osite Nos. 1(588, 1(591, 3602. 1701, 1702. 30513, 10517,
3765, 1706, 1689, 1690. 1693. 1694. 1695. 1606, 1697, ir»nS. 1609, 1703. 1704, 10519,
10520, 10521. 10522, 9803, 9808, 9812, 9813, 9809, 9810. 9811, 9814, 9815. 9816,
and 9817, re^)ectlvely.
It further appears from the record herein that all of the applicants that were
living on June 28, 1898, were residents In good faith of the Indian Territory
on said date.
The evidence In this case further shows that the applicant Daphne Myrtle
Nichols died on June 27, 1901.
I am of the opinion that in accordance with the opinions of the Assistant
Attorney General for the Department of the Interior of February 30, 4905
(I. T. D. 10353-1904), and of December 8, 1905 (I. T. D. 3693-1905), in the case
of Lula West, the action of tJie Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, and
the subsequent action of the United States court for the southern district of
Indian Territory, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court, uiM)n the
right of the applicants who applied to the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes in 1896, with the exception of Andrew J. Peck, was without authority
of law and of no force and eflfect upon the status of said applicants as citiaens
of the Choctaw Nation.
I am further of the opinion that the orders of the Ommlsslon to the Five
Civilized Tribes of December 12, 1904, and March. 18, 1905, dismissing the
applications for the enrollment of Mary B. McCarty, William Barman Johnston,
Minnie Gertrude Brown, Fannie C. Brown, Henry Nlten Brown, Elbert Knight-
iagton Brown, Otis Dewey Peck, Vlrgie Peck, Ix)ule Herman Nichols, and
(iolda Eula Nichols as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and Ell W.
Brown, Bessie Nichols, and Osa Nichols as citizens by Intermarriage of the
Choctaw Nation, should be rescinded.
I am further of the opinion that In accordance with the opinions of the
Assistant Attorney General for the Department of the Interior of March 3, 1905,
J)nd March 10, 1906 (I. T. D. Q060-1005), Nancy A. Brown, Bettle McCarty,
Mary Ethel McCarty, Wlll^m N. Brown, Sarah Johnston, Becky Brown, Mary
Johnston, Mamie (or Minnie) Hudson, Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie
Brown, William Erman Johnston, Minnie Gertrude Brown, Henry Nlten Brown,
Pannle C. Brown, Oswell M. Brown, Maudie Brown, Willie Brown, Ell)ert
Kntghtington Brown, Polly A. Peck, Florence Peck, Oscar Peck, Benjamin Peck,
Andrew Peck, Otis Dewey Peck, Vlrgie Peck, George G, Brown, WUlle Emma
Brown, James B. Nichols, Delia May Scott, Nancy V. Nichols, John W. B.
Nichols, Louie Herman Nichols, Golda Eula Nichols, Orin M. Nichols, James W.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
t550 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA,
Xiehols, Maggie M. Nichols, Met tie Myrtle Nichols, and I^nie A. Nichols stiould
be enrolled as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation tinder the provisions
of the acts of Congi-ess approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stat, 405), and July X
1902 (32 Stat., 041) ; and it ds so ordered.
I Jim further of the opinion that William B. Brown, Nancy Brown, Kll W.
Brown, Amanda Brown, Sarah Brown, Nancy C. Nichols, Bessie Nichols.
Amnnda M. Nichols, and Osa Nichols should be enrolled as citizens by Inter-
marriage of the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the acts of Congress
iipproved June 28. 1898 (30 Stat, 495), and July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641) ; and
it is so ordered.
I am further of the. opinion that the application mnde for the enrollment of
Andrew J. Peck a,s a citizen by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation should be
denied under the provisions of the act of Congress approveil June 38. 1898 (30
Stats., 495), and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that William A. McCnrty, Ollle McCarty. Oscar
Lee Johnston, Willie Clarence Brown, Roy Lester Johnston. Edna Arvel John-
ston. Teddy Golden Johnston, Ruby Dill Brown, Annie Jewell Brown. Prebble
Peck, Cassie Brown, Goldie Brown. Nema May Scott, Lltn Ix)lfl Scott, Sylvle
Jewell Nichols, and Cora I.ee Nichols should be enrolled as citizens by blood of
the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the act of Congress approved April
26, 1906 (Pub. No. 129), and it Is so ordered.
(Copy of decision hereto attached marked *' Exhibit B.")
A schedule containing the names inchided in the above opinion of
the commission was prepared and transmitted to the Secretary for
approval as a part of the final rolls.
March 1, 1907. Secretary reversed decision of commission and
disapproved schedule under a mistaken construction of the Attorney
General's opinion of February 19, 1907, which was erroneously con-
strued by the department to hold that the decision of the citizenship
court in all cases was final. On March 4, 1907, the Attorney Qeneral
rendered an opinion construing his opinion of February 19, 1907,
undier which claimants would have been enrolled, but the latter de-
cision did not reach the department until March 6, 1907, two days
after the rolls had been closed by operation of law.
Those entitled to enrollment are, first, those persons found by the
commission in its decision oi August 13, 1906, to be entitled to enroll-
ment, as follows :
Nancy A. Brown, Bettie McCarty, Mary Ethel McCarty, William
N. Brown, Sarah Johnston, Becky Brown, Mary Johnston, Mamie
(or Minnie) Hudson, Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie Brown,
William Erman Johnston, Minnie Gertrude Brown, Henry Niten
Brown, Fannie C. Brown, Caswell M. Brown, Maudie Brown, Willie
Brown, Elbert Knightington Brown, Polly A. Peck, Florence Peck,
Oscar Peck, Benjamin Peck, Andrew Peck, Otis Dewey Peck, Virgie
Peck, George G. Brown, Willie Emma Brown, James B. rfichms,
Delia May Scott, Nancy V. Nichols, John W. B. Nichols, Louis Her-
man Nichols, Golda Ula Nichols, Orin M. Nichols, James W. Nichols,
Maggie M. Kichols, Mettie Myrtle Nichols, Lonie A. Nichols, William
B. Brown, Nancy Brown, I51i W. Brown, Amanda Brown, Sarah
Brown, Nancy C. Nichols, Bessie Nichols, Amanda M. Nichols, Osa
Nichols, William A. McCarty, Ollie McCarty, Oscar Lee Johnston,
Willie Clarence Brown, Roy Lester Johnston!^ Edna Arvel Johnston,
Teddy Golden Johnston, 6ubie Dill Brown', Annie Jewell Brown,
Prebble Peck, Cassie Brown, Goldie Brown, Nema May Scott, Lita
Lois Scott, Sylvia Jewel Nichols, and Cora Lee Nichols.
And the following persons, sisters or brothers or blood relatives
of the above 64 persons, all admitted by judgment of the United
States court, and possessed of identical rights with those recom-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 851
mended by the commission, but whose names were not <m the 1896
roll, and therefore, as held by the department, they did not come
within the scope of the Lula West decision, and the decree of the
citizenship court was held to be final :
Rebecca Elizabeth Brown, Jane Campbell, James Salathol Camp-
bell, Lona Isabel Campbell, Lucinda Lonella Campbell, Walter Scott
Campbell, Polly Bowen (nee Cooper), William Houston Bowen,
Kessiah Bowen, Rosa Isabel Higgins (nee Brown), William Quit-
man Higgins, Jessie Anderson Bowen, Julia Ann Bowen, Elizal>eth
Jane Bowen, Nancy Barthena Bowen, James Spencer Bowen, George
Washington Bowen, Mary Bowen, Leona May Bowen, Rosa Evaline
Bowen, Jessie Anderson Bowen, jr., Eliza Jane Bowen, Amanda
Jane Ofalter, Charlie J. Ofalter, John F. Ofalter, Amanda M.
Ofalter, Rebecca C. Brown, Mary Brown, Mandie Brown, Willie
Brown, Artie Minty Sanders, John Newton Sanders, Mary Sanders,
Monroe Sanders, William Newton Sanders, Thomas Wilson Sanders,
Minnie Racheal Sanders, Nancy Ellen Sanders, Amanda Minerva
Reynolds, Joseph Ostin Sanders, Jessie Wilson Sanders, Lizzie
Sanders, James Sanders, John M. Sanders, James M. Sanders (or
Jofc^eph), Izie May Sanders, Elijah McFadden Sanders, Joseph Mun-
roe Sanders, Mandie Long, William Long, George Long, Sidney
Long, Pearley Long, Sarah Brown, Mary Rebecca Martin^ Caldonia
Martin, James Henry Martin, George Washington Martin, Robert
Lawrence Martin, Rosa Clemy Martin, Samuel H. Cooper, William
Houston Cooper, John Cooper, jr., Dora Ann Cooper, M!amie Brown,
Sarah Brown, and Earl Long.
(In all 131 persons.)
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field,
Attorney for Claimants.
Exhibit A-1.
TBANSCRIPT OF PBOCEEDINGS.
United States Coubt, Indian Tkbbitory,
Southern District, ss:
At a Btated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, In the Iiuilan Terri-
tory, on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Ix)rd 1897.
Present: The Hon. Hosea Townsend. judge of said court.
On the 20th day of December, 1897, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Nancy J. Cooper et al. r. Choctaw Nation.
FINAL JUDGMENT.
This cause coming on to be heard on this the 20th duy of December, 1897, upon
the master's report and exceptions thereto, and it appearing ther^rom that the
plaintilfs in this case hereafter mentioned and set forth are Choctaw Indians
by blood and by intermarriage and as such are entitled to citizenidiip in tha
Choctaw Nation.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
352 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
And It appearing also from the evidence In this case that the said applicants
are Choctaw Indians by blood and by intermarriage, and It appearing also that
these applicants have duly filed their applications for citizenship before the
Dawes Commission and have duly appealed therefrom to this court. And it
ai)penring that the following-named persons are Choctaw Indians by blood and
nre all now residents of the Indian Territory except Samuel H. Cooper, William
Houston Coor>er, John Cooper, Jr., Donora Ann Cooper, to wit: Rebecca Brown
(n^e C'ooper), William Knighten Brown, Caswell Marion Brown, Polly Ann
Peck (n^e Brown), George G. Brown, Nancy Alice Brown, Settle Brown. Sarah
Browni, Becky Brown. Mary Brown, Mamie Brown, Alice Brown, George Brown,
Susie Brown, Maudie Brown, Willie Brown, Florence Peck, Oscar Peck, Ben-
jamon Grant Peck, Andrew Peck, Willie Emma Brown, Arty Minty Sanders,
John Newton Sanders, Jessie Wilson Sanders, Joseph Munore Sanders, Elijah
McFadden Sanders, Amanda Meuirva Reynolds (n^ Sanders), Joseph Ostrin
Sanders, Mary Sanders, Monroe Sanders, William Newton Sanders, Thomas Wil-
son Sanders, Minnie Racheal Sanders, Nancy Ellen Sanders, James Sanders.
John N. Sanders, James M. Sanders, and Izey May Sanders, William Eacell
Sanders, Miney Reynolds, James Bruton Nichols, Orin Mayberry Nichols, John
William Beffle Nichols, Delia May Nichols, Nancy Telmor Nichols, James Willis
Nichols, Maggie May Nichols, Myrtle Nichols, Lonle Alta Nichols, Poly Bowen
(n^e Cooper), Jane Campbell (n6e Cooper), William Houston Bowen, George
Washington Bowen, Rosie Isabel Hlgglus (n6e Bowen), Nancy Barthena Bowen.
Elizabeth Jane Bowen, James Spiner Bowen, Jessie Anderson Bowen, jr., Eliza
Jane Bowen, Leona May Bowen, Rosa Eveline Bowen, Jesse Anderson Bowen,
Jr.. William Quitman Hlgglns, (Nancy J. Long, n§e Brown, now deceased),
Maudie Long, William Long, George Long, Sidney Long, Pearley Long; and
liOng, James Salathal Campbell, Leona Isabel Campbell, Luclnda Lonella
Campbell. Walter Scott Campbell, Amanda Jane Ofalter (n6e Campbell),
Charley J. Ofalter, John F. Ofalter, Amanda M. Ofalter, Mary Rebecca Martin
(n^e Cooper), Clodonla Martin, James Henry Martin, George Washington Mar-
tin, Rosa Clemy Martin (Nancy Cooper, now deceased). And It appearing that
the following-named parties have intermarried with the above-named parties,
whoarelndlansby blood, on the dates and under the laws hereafter mentioned,
to wit: William Bluford BroA'n (married to Rebecca Cooper under the laws of
Arkansas In the year 1857), Nancy J. Brown, n6e Hurin (married to William
Knighten Brown under the laws of Arkansas in or about the year 1879),
Amanda Brown, n^ Kelly (married to Caswell Marion Brown under the laws
of Arkansas In or about the year 1885), Andrew Jackson Peck (married to Polly
Ann Brown under the laws of Arkansas In the year 1887), Sarah Brown, n4e
Johnson (married to Geor;?e G. Brown under the laws of Arkansas In the year
1804). Lizzie Sanders, n^ Harris (married to Jessie Wilson Sanders under the
laws of Missouri In the year 1892), Martha Jane Sanders, n^ Barnes (married
to Josei)h Sanders under the laws of Missouri In the year 1885), Henry Rey-
nolds (married to Amanda Menerva Sanders under the laws of Arkansas in the
year 1892), Sallie Sanders, n^e Halstead (married to Jasper Ostein Sanders
under the laws of Arkansas In the year 1894), Nancy Caroline Nichols, n^
Gast (married to James Bruton Nichols under the laws of Arkansas In the year
1872), Amanda Melvina Nichols, n(^e Skelton (married to Orln Mayberry Nichols
under the laws of Arkansas in the year 1878), Kessiah Bowen, n^ Bowman
(married to William Houston Bowen under the laws of Arkansas In the year
1872), Mary Bowen, n^ Warren (married to George Washington Bowen ander
the laws of Arkansas In the year 1889), Louis Hlgglns (married to Rosa Isabel
Bowen under the laws of Arkansas In the year 1893), Al Ofolter (married to
Amanda Jane Campbell under the laws of Arkansas In the year 1890), Alex
Martin (married to Mary Rebecca Cooper under the laws of Arkansas In the
year 1880.
And it api^earing to the (fourt from the master's report and from the evidence
in the case that each and every and all of j:he above-named parties are entitled
to enrollment and to citizenship In the Choctaw Nation, except the Intermarried
parties hereinafter named :
It Is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the master's report be
confirmed In all respects, except as to the exceptions thereto, which exceptions
are sustained as to the nonresidents, and that the following-named parties be,
and the same are hereby, admitted to citizenship and to enrollment in the
Choctaw Nation as Choctaw Indians by blood, to wit: Rebecca Brown (n6e
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 353
Cooper), Willinin Knighten Brown, Caswell Marion Hrown, Polly Ann Peck (n^
Brown). George G. Brown, Nancy Allice Brown, Bettie Brown, Sarah Brown,
Becky Brown. -Mary Brown, Mamie Brown, Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie
Brown. MauiUe Brown, Willie Brown, Florence Peck, Oscar Peck, Benjamin Grant
Peck. AndFew Peck, Willie Emma Brown, Arty Mincy Sanders. Jolm Newtoii
Sanders, Jessie Wilson Sanders, Joseph Munroe Sanders, Elijah McFadden Sand-
ers, Mary Sanders, Monroe Sanders, Amanda Menirva Sanders, Joseph Ostla
Sanders, William Ne^'ton Sanders, Thomas WMlson Sanders, Minnie Rachael
Sanders, Nancy Ellen Sanders, James Sanders, John N. Sanders, Joseph M. Sand-
ers, Izey May Sanders, William Ercell Sanders, Mincy Reynolds Sanders. James
Bruton Nichols, Grin Mayberry Nichols, John William Beffle Nichols, Dell May
Nichols, Nancy Vehnor Nichols, James Willis Nichols, Maggie May Nichols.
Myrtle Nichols, Lonie Alta Nichols, Polly Bowen (n6e Cooper), Jane Campbell
(n^e Cooper), William Houston Bowen, (ieorge Washington Bowen, Kosa Isabel
HIgglns (nOe Bowen) Nancy Barthena Bowen, Jessie Anderson Bowen, jr..
Elizabeth Jane Bowen, James Spencer Bowen, Eliza Jane Bowen, Leona May
Bowen, Rosa Evelin Bowen, Jessie Anderson Bowen, Williams Quitman Big-
gins, Nancy J. I^ong (n^ Bowen, now deceased), Mandle I^ng, William Long,
(Jeorge Ix)ng, Sidney Long, Pearley I^ng, Long (youngest child of T. T.
Long), James Salathol Campbell, Leona Isabel Campbell, Luclnda Lonella Camp-
bell, Walter Scott Campbell, Amanda Jane Ofalter (n^e Campbell), Charlie J.
(ifalter, John F. Ofalter, Amanda M. Ofalter, Mary Rebecca Martin (n^t.-
Cooi^er), Caldonia Martin, James Henry Martin, George Washington Martin,
James Henry Martin, Rosa Clemy Martin (Nancy Cooi)er, now deceased),
Samuel H. Cooper, William Houston Cooper, John Cooi>er, jr., Dora Ann Cooper.
And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the following-named
parties be, and the same are hereby, admitted to enrollment and to cltlzenshii>
in the Choctaw Nation as intermarried citizens, as follows, to wit: William Blu-
ford Brown, Andrew Jackson Peck, Nancy Caroline Nichols, Kesslah Bowen.
And the following-named intermarried parties be, and the same are hereby,
rejected, to wit: Nancy Jane Brown, Sarah Brown, Lizzie Sanders, Martha
Jane Sanders, Henry Reynolds, Sallle Sanders, Amanda Melvlna Nichols, Mary
Bowen. Louis Higgins, Al Ofalter, and AJex Martin, because they have married
Hince tiie year 1870 and not In accordance with Indian law.
HosEA TowNSEND, Judge.
Indian Terbitory,
Southern District, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court, at Ardmore, this 4th day of May, 18D8.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
By , Deputy,
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the lands of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct oopy of the final
judgment rendered in the United States court at Ardmore, Okla., in the
matter of Nancy J. Cooper et al. for enrollment as citizens by blood and inter-
marriage of the Choctaw Nation, rendered therein on the 20th day of December,
1897.
J. Geo. Wbight,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records,
e0282— 13 ^28 A
Digitized by VjOOQIC
354 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
ExHIBit A-2.
TRANSCRIPT Of PROCEKDINGS.
United States Court, Indian Territdrv, Soaihcni Distrht, ss:
At a stated term of the United States Ooiirt in the Indian Territory, ■ dl»-
tiict, begun and had In the court rooms, at Ardmore. ift the Indian TeiTitor>%
on the 15th. day of November, In the year of our l^rd 1807.
Present, the honorable Hosen Townsend, Judge of said court.
On the 12th day of March. 1898, being a regular day of said term of said
Court, among the procwHlings hjid were the following, to wit :
Nancy J. Cooi»er et al. r. Ciioctaw Nation.
judgment.
Tills day this cause coming upon the motion of plaintiffs' attorney to correct
a judgment filed herein on December 20, 1897, at the present term of this conrt,
and it api>earing tliat an error was committed in the renditioji of said judgment,
and the court being sutttclently advised upon the whole case :
Doth order, adjudge, and decree that said judgment be corrected so as to
admit the applicants, Nancy Jane Brown, Sarah Brown, lArjzie Sanders, Martha
Jane Sanders, Sallie Sanders, Amanda Melvlna Nichols, Mary Brown, and
I^uisa Higgins, as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by Intermarriage,
it appearing that they were rejected by the former judgment of this court by
oversight and mistake.
It is further adjudged that each of the abo\-e-named parties have all the
rights, privileges, and immunities as memt)«rs of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians
by intermarriage.
And the clerlt of tliis court, in transmitting the original judgment of this
court to the Commission to the Five Oi%iliKed Tribes of Indians, is directed to
transmit this supplement judgment, and same is intended to be and shall be
a imil of the original judgment herein; and the said commission is hereby
directed to enroll each and all the above-named parties in connection with the
other parties named in the original judgment as members of the Choctaw Tribe
of Indians by intermarriage. To all of which the defendant in open court
excepted.
, Judge,
United States Court, Indian Termtory, Southern Di^tHd, «»:
I. C. M. Campbell, clerk of the T'nited Stat^ court within and for the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing onlors ^rr^ trrtly
taken and Correctly copied from court journals of said court as the same appears
to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and Affixed the ?eal of said
court «t Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1S08.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Crerk.
By . Deputy.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertaining
to th^ enrollment of the meml)ers of the Choctaw, Chlcka*5aw, Cherokee, Ci-eek,
and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said tribes,
and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified copy
of the judgment of the court on March 12, 189S, in the matter of the enrollment
of Nancy J. Cooper et al. as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by
intermarriage.
J Geo. Wright.
Commissioner to (he Hi'e Civitized THhes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 855
Exhibit A-3.
tbanscript of pbocbedinqs.
Unitb© States Court. Indian TicBRiroRr,
Son t hern district, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory, southern
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 28th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1898.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Towusend, Judge of said court.
On the 28th day of Serrteniber, 1898, beinji a regular dny of snld term of Sdld
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Nancy J. Cooper, et Al. v, Choctaw Nation. No. 96.
SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT.
(EJntered nunc pro tunc, December 20, 1898.)
It appearing to the court that the Judgment heretofore entered in this cau^e
doi^ not show thrtt Rosa Boen. Julia Ann Boen, and Amanda Brown, were
lidmitted to citilsenship and that Judgment was rendered admitting the sriid Rosa
Boen, Julia Ann Boen, and Amanda Brown, each and all as members oiP the
Ohoctaw Tribe of Indians, but that by oversight or mistake their names were
omitti^ from wid drigina! Judgment. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and
decreed by the court that the plaintiffs, the said Rosa Boen, Julia Ann Boen.
And Amandil BroWii, be and ar6 each and all members by intermarrla^ of the
Choctaw Trlb^ of Indians, ahd are entitled to be enrolled as members Of said
tribe of Indians by hiarrlage. And the clerk of this coutt IS hereby ordered
and directed to forward a certified copy of this Judgment to the proper authori-
ties, for enirollment of the said Rosa Boen, Julia Ann Boen, and Atarinda JBrown,
and that they each and ail be enrolled by said authorities as members of said
Cho^tiiw Tirlbe ot Indiaiis. It Is furthet ordered that this judgment be en-
tered by the ciefk, nunc pto tunc, as of the date of the original Judgment filed
Herein.
Unitw) fetATKS CDtTftT, India* TkbriIIOry,
Southern diitrltf, W;
I, & M. Campbell, clerk of the Tlnibdd States coiirt within and fbr the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that thp foregoing orders are truly
taken, and correctly copied from court Journals of said coutt, as the same ap-
pears ttt me.
In testimony whereof I have het-eunto ^t my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 15th day of October, A. D. 1898.
C. M. Gampbbli^ Clerk,
By , Deputy,
(Seal. United States courl in the Indian Territory.)
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and to the disposition of ttie land of
said tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
certified copy of a supplemental Judgment of the court, dated September 28,
isbs.. In the matter of the enrollment of Nancy J. Cooper et al. as citizens of
the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wbioht,
Commisaioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. AivoELL,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
356 FIVE CIVIIJZED TRIBES IN OKLArffJMA.
Exhibit A-4.
TRANSGBIFT OF PBOCEIlDINGS.
United States Coubt, Indian Tebritoey,
Southern District, m;
amend%:d judgment.
At a stuted term of the United States court in the Indian Territory, southern
district, began and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 28th day of September, In the year of our Lord 1898.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court.
On the 15th day of October, 1898, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceetlings had were the following, to wit :
Nancy J. Cooper et al., plaintiffs, v. Choctaw Nation, defendants. No. 96.
judgment.
This cause coming on to be heard by the court on this the 15th day of Octo-
ber, 1897, upon the motion of the plaintiffs herein to have the judgment herein
rendered on the 20th day of December, 1897. corrected as to the names of
Robert Lawrence Martin, John Roy Sanders, and Earl Ix)ng; and it appearing
that the names of Robert Lawrence Martin and John Roy Sanders, although
appearing upon the application herein and admitted to citizenship in the Choc-
taw Nation, were through the mistake of counsel in drafting the prscipe of the
Judgment herein omitted therefrom, and that the name of Earl Long appeared
in said Judgment as ** I^ng" and further described as the youngest
cliild of T. T. Long; and it appearing that the said Judgment should be
amended and corrected as to these three parties so that Justice may be done
them ;
It is therefore ordered and decreed by the court that the Judgment heretofore
rendered in this case on the 20th day of December, 1897, be amended and cor-
rected as to Robert Lawrence Martin, John Roy Sanders, and Earl Long, and
that the name of Robert I^awrence Martin and John Roy Sanders and Earl
I»ng be admitted therein as citizens of the Choctaw Nation and be included in
the list of names admitted therein to such citizenship, and that the name of
Long be amended and corrected to Earl Long in accordance with tbe
facts.
The clerk of this court is* hereby ordered and directed to certify a copy of
this judgment to the Dawes Conunlssion, and said commission is hereby ordered
and directed to enroll said parties as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Hosea Townsend, Judge,
Unfted States Coubt, Indian Tebbitobt,
Southern District, »s:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court Journals of said court as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and afOxed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 15th day of October, A. D. 18t8.
[seal.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
By , Deputy.
This Is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copv of the Judgment of the court on October 15. 1898, In the matter of the
enrollment of Nancy J. Cooper et al. as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Weight,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 357
Exhibit A-5.
tban8cbipt of proceedings.
United States Court, Indian Territory, Southern distfict, as:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory, southern
district, begun and had in the court rooms, at Ardniore, in the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 4th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1899.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court.
On the 17th day of January, 1900. being a regular day of said term of said
court, among them the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Nancy Cooper et al. v, Choctaw Nation. No. 96.
CORRECTED JUDGMENT.
On this 17th day of Januai^y, 1900, came on to be heard In open court the
motion of the defendant herein to exclude and strlite out from the judgment
heretofore rendered in this cause the following-named persons, to wit: Rebecca
Brown (u^ Cooper), Susie Brown, William Ercell Sanders, Mlncy Reynolds
Sanders, Long, James Henry Martin, Martha Jane Sanders, Andrew
Jackson Peck, Louisa Hlggins. John Ray Sanders, Nancy Jane Boen, Sallie
Sanders, Bettie Brown, Becky Brown, Nancy J. I-ong, Rosa Boen, and that par-
ties appear, and the court having heard said motion and being well and fully
advised In the premises, doth find that said parties have by accident or mistake
been improperly admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by the Judgment
heretofore rendered in this cause. It Is therefore by the court considered,
ordered, and adjudged that the names of said persons and each of them be
stricken out of the judgment heretofore rendered herein and that they take no
rights to such citizenship by virtue of said judgment. That as to the two persons
named in said Judgment as James Henry Martin, the person whose name first
occurs in the original Judgment shflll remain in said judgment and the second
name stricken out as aforesaid. And thei-euiwn came on to be heard the motion
of plaintiflTs herein to correct the Judgment heretofore rendered herein as to
the name Pearly Long, and praying that the supi)lemental judgments herein
admitting to citizenship Sarah Boen, Lizzie Sanders, Nancy Jane Brown, Sarah
Brown, Julia Ann Brown, Amanda Brown, Amanda M. Nichols, Mary Boen,
and Robert Lawrence Martin, which said Judgments were rendered without
notice to defendant. And that Rebecca B. Brown and Rebecca C. Brown, here-
tofore admitted to citizenship herein under erroneous names, be admitted under
their true names, and the court having heard said motion and being well and
fully advised In the premises, doth sustain the same, and it Is by the court
considered, ordered, and adjudged that Earl Long, son of T. T. Long, be ad-
mitted as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation; that the mild Sarah Boen, >\ancy
Jane Brown, Sarah Brown, Julia Ann Boen, Amanda Brown, Lizzie Sanders,
Amanda M. Nichols, Mary B<jeii, nnd Robert Lawrence Martin be admitted to
such citizenship, and that said supplemental Judprments, In so far as they provide
the admission of said pjirtles to citizenship, be confimiwl, and that said Rebecca
E. Brown and Rebecca C. Brown be adinitte;! as citizens of the Choctaw Tribe.
It is further considered and ordered that this judgment is made and entered
nunc pro tunc as of the date of the original judgment herein.
United States Court, Indian Territory, Soutlvem district, ss:
I. C. M. Campbell, clerk of the Tnltod States court within and for the district
and Territory aforcsnid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the same ap-
pears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court, at Ardmore, this 2(Jth day of February, A. D. 1900.
iSEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
By , Deputy.
This Is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the ChtK'taw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
Digitized by V^OOQIC
358 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of the corrected Judgment of the court on January 17, 1900, in the matter
of the enrollment of Nancy CJooper et al. as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Weight,
Commisftioncr to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W . I?. ANGELA,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Depaetment of the Ivteriob,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tbikes.
In the matter of the applicatioa for the enroUment of William B. Brown
et al. as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, consolidating the applications of Wil-
liam B. Brown et al., 7-5006; William N. Brown et al., 7-5060; Ell W. Brown
et al., 7-t)-432; Caswell M. Brown et al., 7-5066; Andrew J. Peck et al.,
7-5062; George G. Brown et al., 7-5095; James B. Nichols et al., 7-510O; John
W. B. Nichols et al., 7-5097 ; Orin M. Nichols et al., 7-5061 ; Osa Nichols et al..
7-IM509.
DECISION.
It appears from the census card records In this case that on September 22,
1S98, application was made to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for
the enrollment of William B. Brown (61 years of age) as a citizen by inter-
marriage of the Choctaw Nation and for the enrollment of his two children,
N^ncy A. Brown (23 years of age) and Bettle Brown, now McCarty (19 years
of age), as citizens by blood of the said nation; on September 22, 1898, for tbe
enrollment of William N. Brown (39 years of age) and his seven minor children,
Sarah Brown, now Johnston (18 years of age), Becky Brown (16 years of age),
Mary Brown, now Johnston (13 years of age), Mamie (or Minnie) Brown,
DOW Hudson (11 years of age), Alice Brown (8 years of age), George Brown
(5 years of age), and Susie Brown (1 year of age), as citizens by blood oi
the Choctaw Nation, and for the enrollment of Nancy Brown (36 years of age)
as a citizen by Intermarriage of said nation; on September 5, 1S99, for the
enrollment of Ell W. Brown (28 years of age) as a citizen by Intermarriage
of the Choctaw Nation; ou September 22, 1898, for the enrollmeat of Caswell
M. Brown (34 years of age) and his two minor children, Maudle (10 years of
age) and Willie Brown (6 years of age), as citizens by blood of the Ohoctaw
Nation; and on October 18, 1898, for the enrollment of his wife, Amanda Brown
(31 years of age), as a citizen by Intermarriage of said nation; on September
22, 1898, for the enrollment of Andew J. Peck (32 years of <ige) as a citizen
by Intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife,
Polly A. Peck (30 years of age), ai^d Jiis five minor children, Flqreuce (9 years
<»f age), Oscar (7 years of age), Benjamin G. (5 years of age). Andrew (3 years
of age), and Otis Dewey Peck (2 months of age), as citizens by blood of said
i^atlon; on September 22, 1898, for the enrollment of George G. Brow a (26
years of age) and his minor daughter, Willie Emma Brown (3 years of age),
as citizens by blood of the CJhoctaw Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife,
Sarqh Brown (21 years of age), as a citizen by Intermarriage of said nation;
ou September 22, 1898, for the enrollment of James B^ Nichols (48 yeara of
age) and his two minor children, Delia May Nichols, now Scott (14 years of
age), and Nancy V. Nichols (7 years of age), as citizens by blood of the Choc-
taw Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife, Nancy C. Nichols (42 years
(«f age), as a citizen by intermarriage of said nation; on September 22, 1898,
for the enrollment of John W. B. Nichols (24 years of age) as a citizen by
Mood of the (^lioctaw Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife, Bessie Nichols
(IS years of age), as a citizen by Intermarriage of said nation; oq September
22. 1S98. for the enrollment of Grin M. Nichols (44 years of age) j^nd his four
minor children. James W- (18 years of age), Maggie M. (12 years of age),
Mettle Myrtle (8 years of age), and TiOnie A. Nichols (4 years of age), as citi-
zens by blood of* the Choctaw Nation, and for the enrollment of his wife.
Amanda M. Nichols (38 years of ape), as a citizen by intermjirriage of siJd
nation; and on September 2o, 1890, for the enrollment of Osa Nichols (17 years
of age) as a citizen by intermarriage of the Choctiiw Nation.
Applications were subsequently made for the enrollment of the following
minor applicants as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation: On January 20,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZEP TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 359
•
1JH)2. for tbe enrollment of Mary Ethel McCarty (bom December 8, 1901);
on May 31, 1906, for tbe enrollment of William A. McOarty (born April 21,
1004) and Ollle McCarty (bom February 14, 1906) ; on October 13, 1900, for
tbe enrollment of William Ermau Johnston (bom June 30, 1900) : on October
19, 1900, for the enrollment of Minnie Gertrude Brown (bora August 13, 1900) ;
on May 16, ]^901, for tl\e enrollment of Fannie C. Brown (born February 11,
inoi); on April 29, 1905. for the enrollment of Oscar Lee Johnston (bora
November 14, ^902) ; on April 29, 1905, for the enrollment of WilMe Clarence
Brown (bom April 8, 1903) : on July 12, 1902, for the airollment of Henry
Xiten Brown (bom May 21. 1902) ; on April 29, 1906, for the enrollment of
Koy Lester Johnston (bora October 28. 1903) ; on May 21, 1906. for the enroll-
uient oi Edna Arvel Johnston (bora March 21, 1905) ; on April 14, 1905, for
the enrollment of Ruble Dill Brown (bom February 12, 1904) ; in 1899. for
the enrol Im^it of Elbert Knljrhtini^ton Brown (born October 8, 1899) ; on April
7. 1905, for the enrollment of Annie Jewell Brown (bom December 2. 1902) ;
<m December 10, 1901, for the enrollment of Virjcie Peck (born October 11,
1901) ; on April 8. 1905, for the enrollment of Prebble Peck (born February 19,
1904) ; on May 21. 1906, for the enrollment of Cassie Brown (born May 30,
1900) and Goldle Brown (born September 5, 1904 >; ou April 17. 1905, for the
enrollment of Nema May Scott (born May 15. 1903) and Lita I^ls Scott (born,
February 1, 1906) : on September 1, 1900, for the enrollment of Louie Herman
Nichols (bom Au^st 19, 1900) ; oi^ December 27, 1901, for the enrollment of
Oolda Ula Nichols (bom September 15, 1901) : on April 1, 1905, for the enroll-
ment of Sylvie Jewel Nichols (bom August 26. 1903) ; on April 14, 1905, for
the enrollment of (^ora Tiee Nichols (bom November 6. 1902) ; on April 6,
1901, for the enrollment o^ Daphne Myrtle Nichols (bom February 20, 1901) ;
and on May 21, 1906, for the enrollment o| TeiWy G(4Uw .Jo^i^ston (bori^
June 15, 1905)*.
It appears from tbe records of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
that on September 9. 1896, in the case entitled ** Nancy Cooper et al. v. Choctaw
Nation" (1896i Ctioctaw cHi?en«hip docket, cas^e No, 1418), ori^iual api>lica-
tion w;is made to said commission, under the i>rovlsions of the ^ct of OooaigreM
api>roved Jiu\g 10. 1896 (29 S^at., 321), for adinlssion to citizenship i» the
Choctaw Nation of the applicants, Nancy A. Brgiwn (as Nancy Alice Brown),
Bettle McCarty (as Rebecca Elizabeth Brown). William N. Brown (as W^illlanc^
Xlten Brown), Sarah Johnston (as Sarah Elizabeth Brown), Becky Brown
;iH Rebecca Catherine Brown). Mary Brown (as Mary Arrllile Brown), Mamie
(or. Mlimle) Hudson (as Minnie Ann Brown), Alice Brown, George Brown
(as George Montjiromery Brown). Caswell M. Browa, Maudle Brown (as Mandy
E. Brown), Willie Brown (as William G. Brown), Polly A. Peck (as Polly
Ann I^eck), Florence JVck (as Minnie F. Peck), Oscar Peck Ois Oscar 8.
I^eck), Benjamin Peck (as Benjamin (>. peck), Andrew Peck. Geor»e G. Brown,
WMl*e Emma Brown. James B. Nichols (as James Bruten Nichols), Delia May
SU^ott (as Mary Delia May Nichols), Nancy V. Nichols (as Nannie Yelma
Nichols), John W. B. Nichols (as John William Bethuel NicholsV, Orln M.
Nichols (as Orrin Maybery Nichols). James W. Nichols (as James Willis
Nichols), Maggie M. Nichols (as Maggie May Nichols), Mettle Myrtle Nichols,
I^nle A. Nichols (as Lonu Alta Nichols) as citizens by blood of wild nation,
and for the admissitm of William B. Brown, Nancy J. Brown (as Nancy
.Titne Brown). Amanda Brown. Andrew J. Peck (as A. J. Peck), Sarah Brown.
Nancy i\ XU'hols (as Nancy Caroline Nichols), and Amanda M. Nichols (as
Amanda Melvlna Nichols) as citizens by Intemiarriage of said nation; and
that on I>eceml»er 8, 1S96. said conmiissi(m rendered Its decision therein, deny-
ing the ai)pllcation of tbe above-named applicants for enrollment as citizens
of the Choctaw Nation.
From this decision of said commission an ap|K*:fl was taken to the ruited
States court for the sonthern district of Indian Territory, which court, on
I>*»cember 27, 1897, in the case entitled ** Nancy J. Coojmr et al. t?. Choctaw
Nation" (southern district citizenship ca.se No. JMi), admitted Nancy A.
Hiown (as Nancy Alice Brown), Bettle McCarty (as Bettie Brown), Sarah
J^ihnson (as Sarah Brown), Becky Brown, Mary Brown, Mamie (or Minnie)
Hudson (as Mamie Brown), Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie Brown, Caswe'l
M. Brown (as Caswell Marion Brown), Maudle Brown, Willie Brown, Polly A.
Peck (as Polly Ann Pei'k), Florence Peck, Oscar Peck, Benjamin Peck (as
Benjamin Grant Peck), Andrew Peck. George G. Brown, Willie IQmma Brown,
James B. Nichols (as James Bruton Nichols), Delia May Scott (as Dell May
Nichols), Nancy V. Nichols (as Nancy Velmor Nichols). Orln M. Nichols (as
Digitized by V^OOQIC
360 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
•
Grin Mnyberrj' Nichols), James W. Nichols (as James Willis Nichols), Maggiii
^' Nichols (as Maggie May Nichols), Mettle Myrtle Nichols (as Myrtle
Nichols), and Lonle A. Nichols (as Lonle Alta Nichols), as citissens by blood
of the Choctaw Nation, and William B. Brown (as William Bluford Brown),
-Niulrew J. Peck (as Andrew Jackson Peck), and Nancy O. Nichols (as Nancy
Caroline Nichols), as citizens by Intermarriage of said nation, and denied the
applications for the admission of Nancy J. Brown (as Nancy Jane Brown),
Sjirah Brown, and Amanda M. Nichols (as Amanda Melvlna Nichols), as citi-
zens by Intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation. The name of the applicant,
Susie Brown, was interpolated in the judgment of said court, she not having
been an applicant before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes In 1896.
On March 18, 1898, said case agalacame before said court upon a motion of
the plaintiff's attorneys to correct the judgment of said court rendered Decem-
ber 20, 1897, and the court thereupon ordered said judgment corrected so as to
admit the applicants, Nancy J. Brown (as Nancy Jane Brown), Sarah Brown,
Amanda M. Nichols (as Amanda Melvlna Nichols), as citizens by intermaniage
of the Choctaw Nation.
On September 28, 1898, said court rendered a supplemental judgment admit-
ting Amanda Brown as a citizen by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation.
On January 17, 1900, this cause again came before said court upon a niotioo
of the defendant to strike out of the judgment theretofore rendered certain
names improperly admitted to citizenship, and said court being fully advised,
ordered that the following names, Susie Brown. Andrew J. Peck (as Andrew
Jackson Peck), Bettle McCJarty (as Bettie Brown), and Becky Brown be
stricken from said former judgment.
Subsequently, upon the representation of the plaintiffs* attorneys that certain
persons who were original applicants were by oversight or mistake left out of
the original judgment theretofore rendered, the court ordered that the appli-
cants, Nancy J. Brown (as Nancy Jane Brown), Sarah Brown, Amanda Brown,
Amanda M. Nichols, and Rebecca E. Brown be admitted to citizenship In the
Choctaw Nation.
It further appears from the records of said commission that on December
17, 19()2, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court, created under the pro-
visions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats.. 641), " set aside,
annulled, vacate<l, and held for naught" the aforesaid judgment of the Fnited
States Court for the Southern District of Indian Territory.
Thereafter the record In the above case was certified to the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Citizenship Court for a trial do novo, which court, on November 29,
1904, in the case entitled " William Nelghton Brown et al. r. Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations" (Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court Case No. 73, Tish-
omingo docket), "ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petition of the plain-
tiffs, William Neighton Brown (or William Knighton Brown), Caswell Marlon
Brown. Polly Ann Peck (nAe Brown). (Jeorge It. Brown (or Heorge G. Brown),
Noney Ellis Brown (or Noney Alice Brown). Sarah Brown. Mar>^ Brown, ^fomle
Brown (or Mamie Brown), Alice Brown, George Brown. Mondie Brown (or
Maudle Brown), Willie Brown. Florence Peck. Oscar Peck, Benjamin Grant Peck,
.Andrew Peck. William Enmia Brown (or Willie Emma Brown) ♦ ♦ * James
Burton Nichols (or Jjunes Bruton Nichols). Oney Mayberry Nichols (or Orin
Mayberrv Nichols), John William Beffle Nichols, Delia May Nichols, Nancy
Velmor Nichols, .Tames Willis Nichols. Maggie May Nichols, Myrtle Nichols.
Lonle Alta Nichols, ♦ ♦ ♦ William Buford Brown. Nancy Caroline Nichols
llebecca E. Brown (or Becky Brown). Rebecca C. Brown (or Rebecca Brown),
Amanda Melvlna Ni<*hols, Amanda Brown, Nancy J. Brown (or Nancy Jane
Brown), Sarah Brown. ♦ * ♦ bo denied, and that they be declare*! not
citizens of the Choctaw Nation, and not entitled to enrollment as such citizens,
and not entitled to any rights whatever flowing therefrom."
On Decenil>er 12, V^H. orders were entered of record by the Commission to
the Five Civilize<l Tribes dismissing the applications for the enrollment of
Mary E. McCartv. William Erman Johnston. Minnie Gertrude Brown, Henry
Niten Brown. Elbert Knightington Brown, Otis Dewey Peck, Virgle Peck, T/)uIe
Herman Nichols, and (loUla T'la Nichols as citizens by blood of tlie Choctaw
Nation, and on March IS, lJK>r). an order was entere<l of record dismissing the
api>llcation for the enrollment of Fannie C. Brown as a citizen by blood of said
nation. All of said applicants were dismissed for the reason that their parents
through whom thev claim their rights to enrollment as citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Nation, liad b(*en denied by a decree of the Choctaw an<l Chickasjiw
Citizenship Court.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 361
On December 12, 1904, orders were entered of record by the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes dismissing the applications for the enrollment of Ell
W. Brown, Bessie Nichols, and Osa Nichols as citizens by intermarriage of the
Choctaw Nation, for the re^ison that the persons through whom they claim
their rights had also been denied by a decree of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Citizenship Conit.
On March 30, 1905, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes denied the
application for the enrollment of Susie Brown as a citizen by blood of the
Choctaw Nation, and on April 6. 1906 (I. T. D., 3810-1905), the department set
aside said decision of the commission and returned the record to this office for
a full investigation upon its merits.
Under the regulations adopted by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes of January 2, 1906, there was filed on February 6, 1906, by Cruce. Cruce
& Bleakmore, of Ardmore, Ind. T., attorneys for the petitioners, petitions pray-
ing that William B. Brown, Nancy A. Brown, Minnie Hudson, Sarah Johnston,
Oscar Lee Johnston, William Erman Johnston, Rebecca Brown, Minnie Gertrude
Brown. Henry Nlten Brown, Ruble Dill Brown, Ell W. Brown, Mary A. John-
ston, Roy Lester Johnston, Edna A. Johnston, Rebecca McCarty, William A.
McCarty, Mary E. McCarty, William N. Brown, Nancy Jane Brown, George
Brown, Alice Brown, Susie Brown, Cletus Brown, Clarence Brown, A. J. Peck,
Polly Ann Peck, Minnie Peck, Oscar Sherman Peck, Benjamin Grant Peck,
Andrew Peck, O. D. Peck. Virgle Peck, Prebble Peck, C. M. Brown, Amanday
Brown, Maudy Brown, William Brown. Elbert K. Brown, Annie Jewel Brown,
George G. Brown, Sarah Brown, Willie Emma Brown, Cassle Brown, Goldle
Brown, J. B. Nichols, Nancy Nichols, Belma Nichols, John W. P.. Nichols, Bessie
Deaton Nichols, Louie Herman Nichols, Golda Eula Nichols, Sllva Jewel
Nichols, Delia May Scott, Nema Scott, Orln M. Nichols. Amanda Nichols, Myrtl(»
Nichols, Ix)nle Nichols, James W\ Nichols, Osa Nichols. Cora I^*e Nichols, and
Maggie Angel be enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
All of the above petitioners, with the exception of Ollle McCarty, Llta I-ols
Scott, Daphne Myrtle Nichols, and Teddy (tolden Johnston, are identical with
the applicants for whom application has been made for enrollment as citizens
of the Choctaw Nation. %
On April 16, 1906, the principal petitioners, their attorneys. Cruce, Cruce &
Bleakmore. of Ardmore, Ind. T., and Messrs. Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish,
attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, of South McAlester, Ind. T.,
were advised that the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes would at his
office at Muskogee, Ind. T., on Monday, May 14. 1906, at 9 o'clock a. m., hear
such testimony and receive such other evidence as might be submitted by the
petitioners In support of their applications for enrollment as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation, and by the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations.
On April 16, 1906, William N. Brown, father of Susie Brown ; Cruce, Cruce
& Bleakmore, attorneys for said Susie Brown; and Mansfield. McMurray &
Cornish, attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, were advised that
on April 6, 1906, the department s©t aside the decision rendered by the com-
mission on March 30. 1905, and returned the record in said case with Instruc-
tions that a full Investigation be made of the rights of said Susie Brown to
enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation; that the testimony of
creditable witnesses be required showing her Choctaw blood. If any, the time
and place of her birth, her various residences, her ancestors, the privileges, if
any, enjoyed by her and her parents as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, and
notified that the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes would at his ofllce
at Muskogee, Ind. T., on Monday, May 14, 1906, at 9 o'clock i\. m., hear such
testimony and receive such other evidence as might be subniifted in support
of said application. Investigation to be conducted along the lines Indicated by
dejmrtment letter above referred to.
On motion of attorney for applicants, the hearing in the matter of the above
application was continued on April 26, 1906, to May 21. 1906.
On May 21, 1906, proceedings were had in the matter of said applications
in pursuance to the notices above mentioned.
It appears from the record herein that the api>licants. William N. Brown,
Caswell M. Brown, Polly Ann Peck, George G. Brown, Nancy A. Brown, and
Bettle McCarty, are the children of the principal applicant, William B. Brown,
and Rebecca Cooper (now deceased), who Is alleged to have been a Chm*taw
Indian and the daughter of William Cooper, who was the sou of Johnny Cooi>er,
an alleged Choctaw Indian, who resided near the line between the States of
Tennessee and Mississipi>i; that Sarah Johnston, Becky Browu, Mary Johnston,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
862 FIVE OIVIUZED TRIBES IN OXLAHOMA.
Mamie (or ^Ilnnie) Hudson, Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie Brown, Fannie
C. Brown, and Willie Clarence Brown are the children of the applicants,
William N. Brown and Nancy J. Brown (the latter an applicant for intermar-
ried rights) ; that William Erman, Oscar Lee, and Teddy Golden Johnston are
the children of the applicant, Sarah Johnston, and J. A. Johnston, a noncitlz^;
that Minnie Gertrude, Henry Niten, and Rubie Dill Brown are the children «l
the applicants, Becky Brown and Eli W. Brown (the latter an applicant ior
intermarried rights) ; that Koy Lester and Edna Arvel Johnston are the chil-
dren of the applicant, Mary Jolmston, and Jace J. Johnston, a noncitlzeu ; ihat
Maudle, Willie. Elbert Knlghtington, and Aimie Jewell Brown are the ehlkLran
of the applicant, Caswell M. Brown, and Amau<to Brown (the hitter an appli-
cant for Iptermarried rights) ; that Florence, Oscar, B^amin, Andrew, Otis
Dewey, Virgie, and Prebble Peck are the children of the ap])licant, Polly Ann
Peck and Andrew J. Peck (the latter an applicant for Intermarried rights);
that W^illie Emma, Cassie, and Goldie Brown are the children of the applicants.
George G. Brown and Sarah Brown (the latter an applicant for Intermarried
rights) ; that Mary Ethel, William A., and OHie McCarty are the children of
the applicant, Bettie McCarty, and Oliver McCarty. a noncitizen ; that James B.
Nichols and Orin M. Nichols are the children of Wilson Nichols (now deceased),
a noncltizen, and Delitha Cooper (now deceased), who is alleged to have been
a Choctaw Indian and the daughter of John Cooper, above referred to; that
John W. B. Nichols, Delia May Scott, and Nancy V. Nichols are the children of
the applicant, James B. Nichols, and Nancy C. Nichols (the latter an ai^loant
for intermarried rights) ; that Louis Herman. Oolda Ula, and Sylvle Jewel
Nichols are the children of the applicant, John y^\ B. Nichols, and Beesia
NkhoJs (the latter an applicant for intermarried rights) ; that Nema May and
Lita Lois Scott are the children of the applicant, Delia May Scott, and Burris
Scott, a noncltizen; that James W., Maggie M., Nettle Myrtle, and Lonie A.
Nichols are the children of the applicant, Oarln M^ Nichols, and Amanita H.
Nichols (the latter an applicant for intermarried rights) ; and that the appli-
cants, Cora Lee and Daphne Myrtle Nichols, are the children of the applicantu,
James W. Nichols and Osa Nichols (the latter an applicant for intermarried
rights). 0
The apiUicant. WiUIaui B. Brown, claims his right to citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation by the virtue of his marriage on Februarj^ 10, 1858, under the laws of
the State of Arkausjis, to Becky Cooper (now dtcejised) ; that Nancy Brown
claims her right to enrollment as a citizen by inteiniarriage by virtue of her
marriage to the applicant. William N. Brown, on September 21, 1879; that
Eli W. Brown claims his right to enrollment as a citizen by intermarriage by
virtue o| his marriage on August 21. 1896, under the laws, customs, and usages
<xf the Chkkas;iw Nation to the applicant. Hiecky Brown, both of said applioints
i)eing at said time renidents iu good faith of tiie Chlckai^iw Xi^tiou ; that Amaud:i
Brown claims her right to enrollment as a citizen by intermarriage by virtue
of her marriage on December 2, 18.S0, to the appllauit, Ca8we4l M. Brown; that
Andrew J. Feck claims his right to enrollment as a citizen by Intermarrlajre
by virtue of his marriage on December 15. 1887, under the laws of the State of
Arkansas, to the applicant, l*oJly A Peck; that Sarah Brown claims her right
to enrollment as a citizen by intermarriage by virtue cxf her marriage to (ieorge
(4. Brown on June 9, 1895; tiiat the applicant. Nancy C. Nichols claims her
right to enrollment as a citizen by Intermarriage by virtue of her marriage to
the aptdlcant, James B. Nichols, on March J>, 1873; that the applicant Bessie
Nichols, claims her right to enrollment as a citizen by Intermarriage by virtue
t>f her marriage on September 11, 1898, to the applicant, John W. B. Nichols:
that Amanda M. Nichols claims her right to enrollment as a citissen by Inter-
marriage by virtue of her marriage on October 20, 1878, to the ap^l^lcant, Orin
M. Nichols; and that Osa Nichols claims her right to enrollment as a citizen
by intermarriage by virtue of her marriage on April 27, 1899» to the applicant
James W. Nichols.
It does not appear from the records herein or from the records In the posses-
sion of this oflace that the applicant. Andrew J. Peck, has ever been admitted to
(^hoctaw citizenship by a duly constituted court or committee of the Chocta\y
Nation, nor has said applicant ever been married to Polly Ann Peck, through
whom he claims his intermarried rights, by virtue of a license Issued by the
tribal authorities of either the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation.
At the hearing before the CV)mmis8loner to the Five Civillssed Tribes on May
21. 1906. William N. Brown, Caswell M. Brown, James B. Nichols, and Orlu M.
Nichols testified that in 1894 they, together with the other applicants herein
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 368
who were living at said time, petitioned the Choctaw Council for admission
n8 citiKens of the Choctaw Nation: that no action having been taken thereon
thof, in 1896, appeared before the Choctaw census commission and made appli-
cation to be enrolled upon the 1886 Choctaw census roll; and that some time
in January, 1887, they receiveil a certificate from the secretary of the Choctaw
revisory Iward, wherein it npi)eared that they had been enrolled upon the 1896
Choctaw census roll. Said applicants further testified that prior to 1896 they
had been permitted to issue permits for their' tenants, held lands, and wei'e
not subject to any tribal tax which was due from all nonqitizens who were
engaged in the mercantile business.
On June 4, 1906, John H. Gamblin testified that he was acquainted with the
;)p(idicants herein, and that in October, 1894, he having business before the
Choctaw Council. prei*euted on behalf of the applicants herein, who \^^ere living
at that time, a petition praying that they be admitted as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation, and that he does not know what action. If any, was ever tiiken thereon.
I'pon an examination of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation in the posses-
sion of this office, It appears that the applicants, William B. Brown, William N.
Brown, Nancy J. Brown, Caswell M. Brown, Amanda Brown, Polly Ann Peck,
Andrew J. Peck, George G. Brown, 8a rah Brown, Nancy A. Brown, Bettie Mc-
carty, Sarah Johnston, Becky Brown, Mary Johnston, Mamie (or Minnie)
Hudson, Alice Brown, George Brown, Susie Brown, Maudie Brown, Willie
Brown, Florence Peck. Oscar Peck, Benjamin Peck, Andrew Peck, James B.
Nichols, Nancy C. Nichols, Grin M. Nichols, Amanda M. Nichols, John W. B.
Nichols, Delia May Scott, Nancy V. Nichols. James W. Nichols, Maggie M.
Nichols, Mettie Myrtle Nichols, and Lonie A. Nichols, are identified upon the
1896 Choctaw census roll, opposite numbers 1688, 1691, 1692, 1701, 1702, 10318,
10517, 1705, 1706, 1689. 1600, 1603. 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1703, 1704,
10519, 10520, 10521, 10522. 9803, 9^018, 98^2, 9813, OSOD, 981a 9811, 9814. 9815,
98ie{, a^a a^lTt respe^tlv^y.
It furthw appeovH fvi\m the vtH'uvc^ l\evelu ttat nil of the applicants that
were living ox\ .June 28, I'iJOS, were vcsu^euts in good faith of the Ipdl^n Tervi-
rory on sale] <l.nte.
The evldenc^ hi this coise further shows that the applicant. Daphne Myrtle
Nichols, dW on Jime 27. 1901.
I am pf the oi)luion tlvit in acca;*rtance with the oi:)lnlons of the Asslst!\ul
Attorney General for the lV])artnient of the Interior of February 10, 1905
a. T. D., m3r).3-1904). and December 8, 1905 (I. T. D., 36aV1905). in the case
(*f I-,ula West, the action of the Coumiission to the Five Clvllizeil Tribes* and
the subsequent action of th^ United States Court for the Southern District ol
Indiaq Territory and the Chacttny and ChH'Ui\sa>Y citizenship court, upon the
n'^ht of ^he a]>iil|eants \vho applied ^o the Connuisslon to the Five Civilized
Tribes in 1896. with the e:vC^PH«>n o^ Amlre\v J. Peck, w^s without authority
of law and ol no force and effect ni>on the status of said applicants as cltUens
of the Choctaw Nation.
I am further of the opinion that the ort^ers of the Coumiission to the Five
Civilized Trlhes (vf December 12. 1904, ami Marc^i 18. lOTiT). dismissing the aVr
pWcatlons for the enrollnifiit of Mary K. McCarty, William Ernian Johnston,
Mhinie Gertrude Brown. Fannie C. Brown. Henry Niten Brown. Elbert Knight-
fngton Brown, CUis Dewey Peck, Virgle Peck, T.o.uls Herman >v^chQls, an4
Golda V\H Nichols ns citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and pii W.
Brown, Bessie Nichols, and Osa Nichols as citizens by Intermarriage of tlw
<Tioctaw Nation, should be rescinded.
I am further of the oi)inlon thnt In accordance with the opinions of the
Aa^istant Attorney Oejieral for the Department of the Interior of March 8,
1905 (I. T. I)., 187-1905K and March 10, 1906 (\. T. D„ 9969-1905). Nancy A.
Brown, Bettie McCi^rty. Mrtry Ethel ^^•Carty, AVllliam X. Bn.wn, S;irah Johns-
ton. Becky Brown, Mary Johnston, Mnmle (or Minnie) Hudsoji, AUce Brown,
i^oorge Brown. SuFle Brown. Wlllinm Ernian .Tohnstgn. Minnie Gertrude
l^rown. Henry Niten Brown, Fnnnle C. Brown. Caswell M. Brown, Maudie
Brown. Willie Brown. Elbeit Knlghtlngton Browp, IVilly A. Peck, :^lorence
Pe<^*k, Oscar Peck, Benjamin Peck, Andrew Peck, Otij^ Dewey Peck, Vlrgie
Peck, George 0. Bi'own. Willie Emma Brown. James B. Nichols, Delia May
.Scott. Nancy V. Nichols. ,Tohn W. B. Nichols. lA)Ule Herman Nichols, Oolda
Fla Nlcluils. Grin M. Nichols. James W. Nichols, Maggie M. Nichols, Mettie
Myrtle Nichols. aiHl Louie A. Nichols should be enrolleil as citizens by blood of
the Choctaw Nation. un<ler the provisions of the acts of Cpngress approved June
28, :i898 (30 Stats.. 49ri), and July 1, 11)02 {,^2 Stats., 641 ), and it is so orderedL
Digitized by VjOOv IC
364 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
I am further of the opinion that Wlllam B. Brown, Nancy Brown, Bll W.
Bi-Dwn, Amanda Brown, Sarah Brown, Nancy C. Nichols, Bessie Nichols,
Amanda M. Nichols, and Osa Nichols should be enrolled as citizens by inter-
marriage of the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the acts of CJongrees
approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stats., 495), and July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., 041). and
it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the application made for the enrollm^it of
Andrew J. Peck as a citizen by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation should be
denied under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 28, 189S (30
Stats., 495), and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opinion that Willinm A. McC?arty. Ollie McCarty, Oscar
Lee Johnston, Willie Clarence Brown, Roy I-.e8ter Johnston. Ekina Arvel Johns-
ton, Teddy Oolden Johnston, Ruble Dill Brown, Annie Jewell Brown, Prebble
Peck, Cassie Brown, Goldie Brown, Nema May Scott. Llta Lois Scott, Sylvie
Jewel Nichols, and Cora Lee Nichols should be enrol letl as citizens by blood
of the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the act of Congress aiiproved
April 26, 190G (Public— No. 129), and it is so ordered.
I am further of the opnlon that the application made for the enrollment of
Daphne Myrtle Nichols as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation should be
dismissed, and It Is so ordered.
Tams Bixby. Commiasiourr.
Muskogee, Ind. T.. August 13, 1906.
Franklin M. Harton et al. Choctaw, 6061.
The names of the following persons, claimants herein, are found
on the 1896 Choctaw census roll at the numbers appearing opposite
their names : Franklin M. Harton, 14658 ; Mattie Harton, 5993 ; John
Harton, 5995; James Harton, 5996; Rachel Harton, 5994; Mary M.
Harton, 5997; John T. O'Quinn, 10029; Minnie L. Leddy, 8416;
John T. Thompson, 12529; Katie Thompson, 15126; Mary Frances
Thompson, 12530 ; Charles Stanley Thompson, 12532; William
Brown Thompson, 12531; John Moody Thompson, 12533; Charles
B. Darken, 14485; John Henry Darken, 3626; Charles B. Darken, jr..
3627; Benjamin Oliver Welch, 14020; Walter Welch, 14021; Maultsv
J. Lawley, 8348; Taylor Percival, 10556; Jesse Percival, 10555";
Forest Percival, 10557; Rebecca Percival, 10569; Katie Percival,
10558; Nannie Vaughan, 12361; Hattie Vaughan, 12362; Callie
Vaughan, 12633; Stella Vaughan, 12634; William H. McCoy, 9507;
Mary G. McCov, 14892; Buford T. McCoy, 9508; Maud Reville,
9509; Cordie Wbolley, 9510; and William McCoy, 9511. \ ,
September 9, 1896. Application made to the commission for citi-
zenship in the Choctaw Nation, in Choctaw 1896 Case, No. 1349, oi
Sarah Jane Thompson (now Darken), Benjamin Welch, Maultsie
Welch, Walter Welch, Johny Darken, Martha Ann Thompson (now
Harton), James William Harton, John F. Harton, Susie Harton.
Narcissa Ellen Thompson (now Percival), Jessee Percival, Taylor
Percival, Forrest Percival, Rebecca Percival, Kate Percival, Nancy
S. Thompson (now Vaughn), Hattie Vaughn, Callie Vaughn, an&
Nannie Vaughn.
December 8, 1896. Application denied by commission, from which
decision no appeal was taken to the United States court.
Applications were made to the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes for the enrollment of the claimants herein as citizens by
blo(jd and intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation, as foUows:
, 1899. Franklin M. Harton (I. W) , Mattie Harton, John
Harton, James Harton, Rachel Harton, Mary M. Harton, Nancy
Ella Harton, citizens by blood, and Narciss^i^^g^hompson (I. W.).
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 365
May 28, 1906. George Pope Harton and Viola Maud Hunt (child
of Rachel Harton, now Hunt).
July 25, 1906. Bertha May Harton (child of John Harton).
September — , 1899. William H. McCov, Buford T. McCoy, Maud
McCoy, Cordie McCoy, William McCoy, citizens by blood, and Marj"
G. McCoy (I. W.).
June 18, 1906. Aninia McCoy, Fay McCoy (children of Buford
T. McCoy), Clara May Reville, Thomas Pembrock Reville (children
of Maud McCoy, now Reville), John D. W^ooUey, and James B.
Woolley (children of Cordie McCoy, now WooUev).
, 1899. William E. Percival (I. W.), Narcissa Ella Per-
cival, Jesse Percival, Taylor Percival, Forrest Percival, Katie Per-
cival, and Rebecca Percival.
December 10, 1903. Narcissa Sadie Percival, citizens by blood.
January 21, 1905.^ Application refused by commipsion and case
forwarded to department.
, 1899. Charles B. Darken (I. W.), Sarah Jane Darken.
John Henry Darken, Charles B. Darken, Myrtle E. Darken, Gertrude
Darken, Benjamin Oliver Welch, Maultsy Loley, Walter Welch,
citizens by blood, and Willie May Loley.
— , 1899. Nannie Vaughan, Hattie Vaughan, Callie
Vaughan, Stella Vaughan, and Roy Vaughan.
July 13, 1906. Thomas Foster, citizen by blood.
September — , 1899. John T. O'Quinn, OUie Odolphus O'Quin,
Minnie L. Leddv, and Fannie Mav O'Quin.
May 8, 1906. \\gnes O'Quin, Mark O'Quin, and Altha S. O'Quin,
citizens by blood.
September — , 1899. John D. Thompson, citizen by blood, and
Emma Geneva Thompson (I. W.),
June 12, 1906. John William Thompson and Hazel Maud
Thompson.
June 21, 1900. John T. Thompson, Mary Frances Thompson,
Charles Stanley Thompson, William Brown Thompson, John Moody
Thompson, citizens by blood, and Katie Thompson (I. W.).
September 26, 1906. Petitions were filed with the department ^
Martha Harton, Nannie Foster (formerly Vaughan), William E.
Percival, Sarah Jane Darken, and John D. Thompson relative to
enrollment of themselves and their families as Choctaws.
April 4 and 5, 1906. Department directs that the cases of the
last-named persons be adjudicated.
April 17, 1906. Department directs that the rights of John T.
O'Quin be adjudicated as a Choctaw by blood.
May 28, 1906. Further testimony taken by commissioner in these
XBases, which were consolidated.
It is fully established by the record that the names of the leading
claimants appear on the 1896 Choctaw roll as set out above; that
they were residents of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for
several years prior to 1898.
January 10, 1907. Commissioner renders decision relative to the
rights of the persons included in this case as follows:
FoUowlng the ruUng of the department of April 4, 1906 (I. T. D. 4222-1906),
In the case of Mary B. O'Qnln et al., I am of the opinion that the applicants
herein, who are of Choctaw hlood, who were residents In good faith of Indian
Territory on Jane 28, 1898, and whose names appear upon the 1896 Choctaw
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
census roll, and their deflcendants bcm since said roll was m^de, and those
persons who were married to any of said applicants in accordance with the
laws of the Choctaw Nation, should be enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation.
I am further of the dplnlou that the applications for the enrollment of the
uppHcants herein, whdse names do not appear upon the lSd6 Choctaw censne
roll and who are not descendants of persons whose names do appeaf* npon
said roll, born since the date thereof, and those Intermarried applicants who
were not married to their Indian spouses In accordance with tlie laws of the
Choctaw Nation should be denied.
I am therefore of the opinion that the applicants. John T. CQuinn. Ollle
Odolphus O'Quinn, Minnie L. Leddj% John T. Thompson, Mary Frances Thomp-
son, Charles Stanley Thomi>8on, William Brown Thompson, John Moody Thomp-
son, John Henry Darken, Charles 6. Darken, jr., Benjamin Oliver Welch.
Walter Welch, Maultsy J. LaWley, Willie Majr I^awley, Mattle Harton, John
Uarton, Rachel Harton, James Harton, Mary M. Harton, Nancy Ella Harton,
Jesse Percival, Taylor Perclval, Folrreftt Percival, Katie Perclval, Rebecca
Percival, Xarcissti Sadie I^ercival. Nannie Vaughan, Hattie Vaughan, Callle
VaUju'han, Stella Vaughan, Roy Vaughan, William H. AicCoy, BUford T. McCoy,
Maud Revllle, Cordie Woolley, and William McCoy, should He enrolled os cltL-
«c»ns by blood of the Choctaw*- Nation, umHer the provisions of the act of Con-
gress approved July 3, 1902 (32 Stats., G41) ; and it Is So oiMi^ed.
I am further of the opinion that the applicants, Fannie Mav 0*Qulnn, BCatie
Thompson, aiid Mary G. McCoy, should bfe enrolled as citizens ny Intermarriage
of the Choctaw Nation under the provisions of the act of Congress approved
July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., 641) ; and it Is so Ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the applicants, Agneft 0*Qulnn, AJtha S.
O'Quinn, Mark O'Quinn, Bertha May Harton. George Pope tiartou, Viola
Maude Hunt, Thomas Foster, (^ara May Revllle, Thottias PembrOck Revllle.
John I). Woi>lley, James B. Woolley, Amina McCoy, and Fay McCbJr. shonld be
enrolled as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation under the proTlsloiiB of
the act of Onigress approved April 20, 1906 (34 Stats.. 187) ; and It Is so ord^rcni.
I am further of the opinion that the record herein establishes that applica-
tion was made for the enrollment of John D. Thompson as A citizen by blood
Of the Choctaw Nation and for the enrollnleht of Emfna Geneva Thoihpson
as a citizen by Intermarriage of said nation within the tllne limited by the
provisions of the act of Congress appi-oved April 20. 1000 (34 Stats.. 137), and
that the same should now be determined upon Its merits; and It Is So ordered.
I am further of the opinion that the applications for the enrollment df John
I>. I'hompson, Sarah Jane Darken. Myrtle i*l Darken, and Gerirhde BA. Darken
$^ citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation should be denied nndfer thfe pro-
visions of th^ act of CJongress jlpproved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., 641) ; and It IR
so ordered.
1 am further of the opinion that the applications for the enrollment of
Franklin M. Harton, ChaMes B. barktert. Emma Geneva l^hompsoh, and William
B. Pertival as citizens by Intermarriage of the Chocta^ Natkm should be
denied under the provisions of the act df Congress approS-ed Jnly 1, 1002
(32 Stats., 041) ; and It is so ordtrtd.
i am further of the Opinion that the petition filed by John D. Thompson,
Septen^ber 20, 1905, In so far as It applies to John William Thohii>^n and
BazOl Mtlude Thompson^ should be conaldered as nn at>pllcattOn for the i^nroll-
ment of said persons as citizens by blood of the Cht»ct^w Natloii undet* the pfo-
Tisions of the act of Congress approved April 20, 1900 (34 Stats., 137), that said
Applications should be dehletl, and It lis so oMered.
I am further of the opinion that the application for thte eht*Dllm^ht of Rnby
(TQlilnn, who the record shoWS dlfed March 15, 18d9, and tor the enroBment of
Ifartlssa 8. Thompson and Narcissa Ella Perclval, who the record shows dl^
prior to September 25, 1902, should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
January 17, 1907. The names of the persolis enrolled by decisimi
erf January 10, 1907, placed on schedules of citizehB by blood and in-
termarriage of thfe Choctaw Nation, as follows :
Schedule of Choctaws by blood, Nos. 16066 to 16101, inclusive:
I6O664 O'Quinn, John T.; 16067, O'Quinn, OUie Odolphus: 160^,
Lfeddy, Minnie L.; 16069, Thompson, John T.; 16070, Thompson,
Mhry Frances; 16071, Thompson, Chatlfes Stahley; 16072, Thortit)-
Digitized by V^OOQl€
vrm c^viuEED tmbeb in okiahoma. 367
son, WiUiata Brown; 16073^ Thompson^ John Moody; 16074, Dark^,
John Henry; 16075, Darken, Charles B.,jr.; 16076, Welch, Benjamin
Oliver; 16077, Welch^ Walter; 16078. Lawley, Matiltsv J.; 16079,
LftMrley, Willie Mey; 16080, Harton, Mattie; 16081, Hart on, John;
16082, Harton, Jam^s; 16088, Harton Rachel; 16084, Harton, Mary
M.? 16085, Harton, Nahcy Ella; 16086, Percival, J^sse; 16087, Per-
civalj Taylor; 16068, Perfeival, Forrest; 16089, Percival, Katie; 16090,
Pfercival, Reb^ca; 16091, Percival, Narcissa Sadie; 16092, Vaughan,
Nanfiie; 16093, Va«*ghan, Hattie; 16094, Vaughan, Callie; 16095,
Vattghan, Stella; 16096, Vfeughan, Roy; 16097, SfcCoy, William H.;
16098, McCoy^ Buford T.; 16099, Reville, Maird; 16100, Woolley,
Cordie; and 16101, McCoy, William.
Schedule of Choctaws by marriage, Nos. 1623 to 1625. inclusive :
1623, O'Quinn, Fannie May; 1624, Thompson, Katie; and 1625, Mc-
Coy, MaiT G.
Schedule of minor Choctaws (Apr. 26, 1906), Nos. 844 to 856,
inclusive: 844, Foster, Thomas; 845, O'Quin, Agn^; 846, OX^uin,
Mark; 847, O'Quin, Altha S.; 848, Harton,^Bertha May; 849, Hunt,
Viola Maude; 860, Hat-ton, George Pope; 851 McCoy, Amina; 85tJ,
McCoy, Fay ; 853i, Reville^ Clara May ; 854, Kevilte,' Thoma^s Pem-
brodt ; 855, Woolley, John D. ; and 856. Woolley, James B.
March 2, 1907. Department reversed decision of commissioner as
to the persons held to be entitled to enrc^ment.
March 4, 1907. Department disapproves the enrollment of the per-
sons on schedules described above.
March 1, 190f . Departmeait requests teport relative to these claim-
ants.
A»ril 22, 1909. Coinmissi<»ier imports to department in this case
the facts set forth above.
June 2, 1909. Department held that this case was not analogous
to the Goldaby ca«e and that no action c5ould be taken looking to en-
rollttient of applicants therein under opinion of United States Su-
prettie Court m tlie Goldsby case.
It appeals from the record in this case that the claimants are Choc-
taws by blood and possessed of one-sixteenth and one-thirty-second
Clibctaw blood, aild that the princij^al claimants resided in the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for several years prior to 1898 ; that
their names are on the 1896 Choctaw censtis roll; that they are re-
lated to William C. Thompson and Mary E. O'Quin, who were en-
rolled under departmental instructions of April 4, 1906, and that
their status is identical with that of claimants herein.
The enlx)llment of the claimants in the cases of William C. Thomp-
son et al. and Mary E. O'Quin et al. was canceled by the department
on February 23, 1907, under an eri*oneous construction by the de-
partment of the opinion of the Attorney General of the United
States of Feblruary 12, 1907, which opinion was modified by a silb-
sequent opinitm of Matich 4, 1907. The latter was not received by
the department until March 6, 1907, too late to be used in enrollment
oaoesw
Under ail opinion bf the United States Supreme Court of Novem-
ber 30, 1908, in the Goldsby and Allison cases, holding that the
Secretary of the Interior had no authority to strike names from the
approved rolls without notice and directmg. him to reinstate them,
William C. Thompson and his family, Mary E. O'Quin and her
family, and the other parties to that case were restored to th^wfe
368 FIVE OITILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
by the department January 19, 1909, but the enrollment of the claim-
ants herem never having bJeen approved by the department their case
did not come within the purview of said opinion.
The names of William C. Thompson, Mary E. O'Quin, and other
members of their families appear upon the finally approved rolls of
citizens bv blood of the Choctaw Nation, as follows: 15995, Thomp-
son, William C; 15996, Stubblefield, Sarah T.; 15997, Thompson,
William R.; 15998, McNeese, Marj M.; 15999, McNeese^ Harrold
Graham; 16000, Thompson, William C, jr.; 16001, Thompson.
Arthur M.; 16012, O'Quin, Mary E.; 16013, O'Quin, James Walter;
16014. O'Quin, Dora E.; 16015, O'Quin, Thomas M.; and 16016,
O'Quin, Ora May.
Counsel for claimants represent that the claimants herein are ad-
mittedly of Choctaw blood and certain of their names appear upon
the Choctaw tribal rolls and their relatives occupying the same
status appear upon the finally approved roll of Choctaws by blood,
and the approval of the enrollment of these claimants by the Secre-
tary of the Interior was^ prevented by an erroneous Construction of
the opinion of the. Attorney General of the United States of Febru-
ary 12, 1907, which was subsequently modified by an opinion of
March 4, 1907, received by the department after the expiration of
the time within which persons coula be enrolled, and
Counsel respectfully submit that claimants herein are entitled to
enrollment.
Persons held by the commissioner to be entitled to enrollment are:
John T. O'Quinn, Ollie Odolphus O'Quinn, Minnie L. Leddy, John
T. Thompson, Marv Frances Thompson, Charles Stanley Thompson,
Katie (wife), William Brown Thompson, John Moodj Thompson.
John Henry Darken, Charles B. Darken, jr., Benjamin Oliver
AVelch, Walter Welch, Maultsy J. Lawley, Willie May Lawley, Mat-
tie Hnrton, John Harton, Rachel Harton, James Harton, Mary M.
Harton, Xancy Ella Harton, Jesse Percival, Taylor Percival, For-
rest Percival, Katie Percival, Rebecca Percival, Xarcissa Sadie Per-
cival, Nannie Vaughan, Hattie Vaughan, Callie Vaughan, Stella
Vaughan, Roy Vaughan, WUliam BL McCoy, Buford T. McCoy,
Maud Reville, Cordie WooUey, William McCoy, Fannie May
O'Quinn, Katie Thompson, Mary G. McCoy, Altha S. O'Quin, Ags^
O'Quin, Mark O'Quin, Bertha May Harton, George Pope Harton,
Viola Maude Hunt, Thomas Foster, Clara Mav Reville, Thomas Pern*
brock Reville, John D. WooUey, James B. WooUey, Amina McCoy,
and Fay McCoy.
Persons occup}nng identically the same status except that their
names do not appear on the 189G Choctaw roll are: Sarah Jaiie
Darken, Myrtle E.. Darken, Gertrude M. Darken, and John D.
Thompson.
Minor children of John D. Thompson, who were denied because
their father was refused enrollment: John William Thompson and
Hazel Maude Thompson.
Entitled because married long prior to Choctaw law on marriage
and because adopted by the tribal authorities : Thos. P. O'Quin.
(Fifty-eight in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Wai/tbr S. Field,
Attorney for Claimant.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 369
Terry Thompson Stubblefield et al.
M. C. K. No. 6258-M. C. K. 341.
July — , 1896. Application made to Dawes Commission.
August 1, 1896. Application made to the Choctaw council.
October 10, 1896. Admitted by the Choctaw council.
January 6, 1897. Enrolled by the revisory committee of the Choc-
taw council.
September 12, 1902. Hearing before the commission at Muskogee,
Okla., for the enrollment of nerself and children * * *. Ile-
jocted.
statement of facts.
The decision of the Secretary of the Interior, E. A. Hitchcock,
dated March 30, 1905, sets out the following:
William C. Thompson, the gniudfather of the principal applicant, iied
Aiijrust 31, 1840, in the Choctaw Nation, a recognized citizen thereof. While
Mrs. Stubblefield was born in Mississippi, she removed with her father, Arthur
F. Thompson, son of the said William Thompson, to the Choctaw Nation.
This removal occurred when she was a child and, as she states, when she was
too j-oung to remember. As she was bom about the year 1861, the removal
must have taken place in the early sixties. Her father, according to the
uncontroverted testimony, resided in the Choctaw Nation until the time of his
death, the principal applicant herself residing in said nation apparently until
the time of her marriage to William Stubblefield. a white man. Soon there-
after, apparently as early as 1878. she removed to Texas, where she had
re8i<]ed continuously for more than 20 years, and was still residing at the time
of the hearing, namely, September 12, 1902.
In an opinion rendered March 3, 1905, ai>i)roved by tlie department the
siime day ♦ ♦ ♦ the Assistant Attorney General held, relative to W. C.
Thompson, that the recognition of him and all those included in his petition of
August 1, 1896, by the Choctaw committee, was within the powers of that body.
This petition of W. C. Thompson and the enrollment under it by
(he Choctaw authorities included this applicant. William C. Thomp-
son and all other persons in this family, excepting this applicant,
have been finally enrolled and allotted in the Choctaw Nation. This
applicant has l>een excluded solely upon the ground that she was a
nonresident in 1902. The same opinion of the Secretary of the
Interior quoted above also contains the following:
While It appears that Mrs. Stubblefield was recognized in the same manner
as William C. Thompson and that he is the same descent, still, she was not
a resident of the nation at the time of her hearing, September 12, 1902, nor
had she been a resident thereof at any time during the last 20 years preceding
that date. No testimony has been furnished showing t^at she retained property
In the nation or that it was her intention to return to the Choctaw Nation and
make it her home.
Subsequent to the date of this decision proof was filed with the
department showing conclusively that Mrs. Stubblefield at the time
of her marriage hem valuable landed interests under the tribal laws
of the Choctaw Nation and that at that time, with the idea of
maintaining tribal relations to which she had been born, she and her
husband retained the same, although they removed temporarily to the
State of Texas. This proof further shows that she retained this
and other property up until the time of allotment and that one of
her children, a minor, resided in the nation a large part of the time
and was finally enrolled with William C. Thompson, above named,
who had charge of the property of this applicant.
69282— -13 24 Digitized by V^OOQIC
370 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
STATEMENT OF COUNCIL.
This applicant has been excluded upon a misconstruction of the
law which provided that a Choctaw Indian, to be entitled to en-
rollment, should have, at some time prior to the passage of the act
of 1898, " established a residence therein." It is v^vy evident that
this woman not alone established a residence, but that she was bom
to the allegiance of the tribe and that she lived all of her younger
days in the nation and that when she removed she removed tempo-
rarily, retaining property in the nation, to which she expected to
return. She and her children, except Sarah T. Stubblefield, already
enrolled ajid allotted, are plainly entitled.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field, -
Attorney for Claimants.
Cases of exceptional merit baiTed by reason of the provisions of the
act of May 31, 1900, the names of the applicants not appearing on
the tribal rolls.
Robert Goins et al., Choctaw\
Commission, Xo. 55. United States court. No. 127. Citizensliip
court. No. 31-T.
On the 1874 census roll of Kiamitia County appear the names of
Henry, William, and James Goins, together with their children, un-
named, as Choctaws by blood.
record.
September 9, 1896. Original application for the enrollment of
Robert Goins and 99 others, all claiming to be the children and grand-
children of Jeremiah Goins, a half-blood Choctaw aad a recogniaed
member of the Choctaw Nation in Mississippi, was filed with the
commission, and evidence in support thereof, consisting of nuBE^rous
affidavits, submitted.
The record shows that Jeremiah Goins was a mixed-blood Choc-
taw, possessing somewhere between one-half and seven-eighths Choc-
taw Wood ; that his father was Philip Goins, his mother, Oti. Philip
Goins was about three-quarters Choctaw, while Oti was a full blood.
Jeremiah Goins and his family were members of the Choctaw Nation
in Mississippi in 1830. At an early day (the exact date is not given)
he moved to Texas, and later lived and died in Atoscosa County, Tex.
The record shows that he was one of the frontiersmen alternating
between the Choctaw Nation and Texas; that he was always ac-
knowledged by those who knew him to be a Choctaw Indian; that
he acted as an interpreter in proceedings in which Choctaws ap-
peared.
David Reynolds, 78 years old and a resident of Atoscosa County,
Tex., testifies:
I was preseut when he (Jereuihih (^olns) proved himself bj* white men
and Indians that he was a Choctaw Indian at Nacofrdoches County in Texas,
in 1848, In the latter part of August. . ^^^.^
Digitized by VjOOQ Ic
FIVE Civil JZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 371
While the record is not clear, it would appear that in some court
proceedings the question as to whether or not Jeremiah Goins and
nis family were Choctaw Indians was at issue, and the court adjudged
them Choctaw Indians. There is no more specific reference to the
court proceedings.
It further appears that Jeremiah Goins died in Atoscosa County.
Tex. Jeremiah Goins married Shorpine Drake, and as a result oi
said union the following children were born: Henry Goins (now
deceased), Ranson Goins, Seaborn Goins (now deceased), Robert
Goins, James Goins, Raborn Goins, Reuben Goins, Jerry Goins,
Eveline Goins, Caroline Goins, Adeline Goins, Emily Goins, and
Mary Goins.
On Au^st 20, 1896, the following children of Jeremiah Goins
resided with their families in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations,
where some of them had lived for many years: Henry Goins's family
(he being deceased), Ranson Goins, Caroline Morris (n^ Goins),
Robert Goins, Adeline Mulkey (nee Goins), Cherokee Nation ; Reuben
Goins, Jerry Goins, and Mary Southland (nee Goins).
The above persons and their childi-en are claimants herein.
On the 1874 census roll of Kiamitia County appear the names of
Henry, James, and William Goins and their chiiaren, unnamed, as
Choctaws by blood. James and Henry Goins were children of Jere-
miah Goins, while William is a grandson of Jeremiah Goins.
The record conclusively establishes the relationship of all the
claimants to Jeremiah Goins.
October 9, 1896. The attorneys for the nations, Stuart, Gordon &
Hailey, filed with the commission the answer of the Choctaw Nation
to the" petition of claimants, in which it is stated:
There is no e\ideiK:e to ^liow tliHt this claiiu hiis ever been dUimted by tbe
CJUoctaw Xatiou.
No evidence was offered by the nations.
December 1, 1896. Application denied by commission. No deci-
sicm ; merialy stamped '^ Denied."
From the decision of the commission appeal was taken to the
United States Court for the Southern District, Indian Territory, at
Ardraore, record before the commisaion was transmitted and made
Earl of the record before the court. Additional testimony was taken
efore the master. Attorneys for the nations were present and ex-
amined witnesses. No evidence was offered by the nations.
December 21, 1897. Decree entered admitting: the following per-
sons: Robert (ioins, Elizabeth Goins, Seaborn Goins, Calvin Goins,
Caroline Goins, John Goins, Elizabeth Goins, Minerva Goins, William
Henry Goins, Samantha Goins, James Goins, James Goins, jr., Ran-
dolpli Goins, Lizzie Goins, Raybom Groins, Thomas L. Goins, William
Goms, Collin Goins, Eli Goins, Raybom Goins, Campbell Goins,
Martha Margaret Goins, Missouri E. Goins, Amanda May Goins,
Dinkey Goins, Reuben Goins, Mary Goins, Cordelia Goins, Jeremiah
Goins, jr., Monroe Goins, William Goins, Frank Goins, liconard
Goins, Mrs. E valine Paddieo, Reuben Paddieo, John Paddieo, Eya-
line Paddieo, Martha Paddieo, Tasso Paddieo, James Paddieo,
Amanda Paddieo, Jerry M. Morris, G. W. Morris, Spencer W. Mor-
ris, jr., Sarah Moms, Kansas Morris, Mrs. Emily Perrice, G. W.
Nevils, Ike Perrice, Josephine Perrice, Mary Perrice, Anna Perric:^
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
372 FH^E •CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Alzona Perrice, Caroline Perrice, Mrs. Mary Southward, W. C.
Southward, William M. Southward, Elizabeth Southward, John F.
Southward, James Marion Southward, Jessie Mvrtle Southward,
ilaggie May Southward, James Melton Gardner, Margaret Lucene
(lardner, Manda Eldora Gardner, Cora Lee.Gardner, J. M. Gardner,
Ebenezer S. Morris, Gertrude E. ilorris, Jesse W. Morris, Jesse Cole-
man Morris, Augusta B. Morris, Wilmuth Morris, Nora Lee Morris,
MoUie Morris, Cora May Morris, Kansas Viola Morris, Frank C.
Jones, James Jones, Jesse Jones, Gypsie Jones, Frank C. Jones, Igna-
thia Marjories, Susie Marjories, Reams Marjories, Joe Perrice, Igna-
tia Perrice, jr., Eugene Dias, Albert Dias, Clara Androda, Christoval
Androda, Mrs. Josephine Priest, Adella Taylor, Pearline Taylor,
Anzo Taylor, William Martin Tavlor, Josephine Taylor, and Clara
Taylor.
Certified copy of decree hereto attached, marked " Exhibit A."
December 17, 1902. Decree of United States court vacated by de-
cree of citizenship court in " test case.''
March 3, 1903. Case transferred to citizenship court for trial de
novo.
May 20, 1904. Mr. Herbert, attorney for claimants, moved the court
for leave to dismiss the case.
May 31, 1904. Motion denied. No additional testimony offered.
Record before the commission and United States court offered and
rejected as not admissible in evidence. No record of briefs filed or
arguments made. No opinion.
June 29, 1904. Decree entered denying all claimants.
On September 23, 1898, and at various dates thereafter, applica-
tions were duly made to the commission within the time prescribed
bj law for the enrollment of children of those persons admitted to
citizenship by decree of United States court, and whose names do not
appear in said decree. They are: Leroy Goins, Albert Goins, Georgia
(Joins, Paul Goins, Minneola Goins, Henry Goins, Jewel Goins, Star-
ley May Goins, Jesse Goins, Clarence fi. Goins, Sarah W. Goins,
Nellie Goins, Lula Goins, Tomer A. Goins, Henry A. Goins, William
B. Goins, Allie May Goins, General Jackson Hinkle, Bessie M. Jones,
Flora Leona Jones, Buel Bradford Jones, Frank Delmer Jones, James
I. Paddieo, Eugene Paddieo, John L. S. Cox, Eva Paddieo, Josie
Paddieo, William Adolphus Ramsey, EflSe S. Southward, Susan
Southward, Edith Southward, William W. Morris, Lula Mamie
Morris, Andrew J. Dorn, Tommy O. Dom, Robert A. Dom, Len(»*a
May Laxton, Maggie Edwards, Roy Edwards, Elizabeth Martinez,
Alzina Martinez, Ira Padier, Seborn Goins, Nellie Marjories, Manuel
Marjories, jr., Fred Lee Marjories, Ida Goins, Ruby Viola Goins,
Joseph Goins, Conception Perrice (or Peres), Ella Perrice, and Stella
Perrice.
In September, 1904, the applications for enrollment of the above
children were denied by the commission, for the reason that, as
stated in one of the opinions:
The right of the applicants* father, John IT. Goins, to citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation having been adversely determined by a decree of the Choc-
taw and Chickasaw citizenship court June 20, 1904, in case No. 31, upon the
Tishomingo docket of said court, it is hereby ordered that application of
♦ ♦ ♦ for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation be dis-
missed.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 373
September 15, 1904. Case closed.
April 22, 1909. Indian Office requests report as to right to enroll-
ment of claimants.
April 30, 1909. Report of commissioner to Indian Office.
June 3, 1909. Department holds this case not analogous to
Goldsby case, as the names of claimants herein were never on any
schedule approved by the Secretary and subsequently stricken there-
from without notice to claimants, and declines to enroll applicants,
as the Secretary is without authority of law to do so.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
There is not one line of evidence offered in this case before any
tribunal by the nations. The proof of blood, residence, and tribal
affiliation of claimants covering more than 50 pages of typewriting
stands uncontradicted. Those entitled to enrollment are: Robert
Goins, Elizabeth Goins, Seborn Goins, Calvin Goins, Caroline
Goins, John Goins, Elizabeth Goins, Minerva Goins, William Henry
Goins, Samontha Goins, James Goins, James Goins, jr., Randolph
Goins, Lizzie Goins, Rayborn Goins, Thomas L. Goins, ^William
Goins, Collin Goins, Eli Goins, Raybom Goins, Campbell Goins,
Martha Margaret Goins, Missouri E. Goins, Amanda May Goins,
Dinkey Goins, Reuben Goins, Mary Goins, Cordelia Goins, Jeremiah
Goins, jr., Monroe Goins, William Goins, Frank Goins, Leonard
Goins, Mrs. Evaline Paddieo, Reuben Paddieo, Tasso Paddieo, John
Paddieo, Evaline Paddieo, Martha Paddieo, James Paddieo,
Amanda Paddieo, Jerry M. MoiTis, G. W. Morris, Spencer W. Mor-
ris, jr., Sarah Morris, Kansas Morris, Mrs. Emily Perrice, G. W.
Nevils, Ike Perrice, Josephine Perrice, Mary Perrice, Anna Perrice,
Alzona Perrice, Caroline Perrice, Mrs. Marj^ Southward, W. C.
Southward, William M. Southward, Elizabeth Southward, John F.
Southward, James Marion Southward, Jessie Myrtle Southward,
Maggie Ma^ Southward, James Melton Gardner, Margaret Lugene
Gardner, Munda Eldora Gardner, Cora Lee Gardner, J. M. Gardner,
Ebenezer S. Morris, Gertrude E. Morris, Jesse W. Morris, Jesse
Coleman Morris, Au^sta B. Morris, Wilmuth Morris, Xora Lee
Morris, Mollie Morris, Cora May Morris, Kansas Viola Morris,
Frank C. Jones, James Jones, Jesse Jones, Gypsie Jones, Frank C.
Jones, Ignathia Marjories, Susie Marjories, Reams Marjories, Joe
Perrice, Ignatia Perrice, jr., Eugene Dias, Albert Dias, Clara
Androda, Christoval Androda, Mrs. Josephine Priest, Adella Taylor,
Pearline Taylor. Anzo Taylor, W^illiam Martin Taylor, Josephine
Taylor, Clara Taylor, Leroy Goins, Albert Goins, Georgia Goins,
Paul Goins. Minneola Goins, Henry Goins, Jewel Goins, Starley
May Goins, Jesse Goins, Clarence G. Goins, Sarah W. Goins, Nellie
Goins, Lula Goins, Tomer A. Goins, Henry A. Goins, William B.
Goins, AUie May Goins, (ieneral Jackson Hinkle, Bessie M. Jones,
Flora Leona Jones, Buel Bradford Jones, Frank Delmer Jones,
James I. Paddieo, Eugene Paddieo, John L. S. Cox, Eva Paddieo,
Jpsie Paddieo, W^illiam Adolphus Ramsey, Effie S. Southward,
Susan Southward, Edith Southward, William W. Morris, Lula
Mamie Morris, Andrew J. Dorn, Tommy O. Dorn, Robert A. Dorn,
Lenora May Laxton, Maggie Edwards, Roy Edwards, Elizabeth
Digitized by V^OOQIC
374 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Martinez, Alzina Martinez, Ira Padier, Seborn Goins, Nellie Mar-
jories, Manuel Marjories, jr., Fred Lee Marjories, Ida Goins, Ruby
Viola Goins, Joseph Goins, Conception Perrice (or Peres), Ella
Perrice, and Stella Perrice.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Lee
and Walter S. Field.
Exhibit A.
Copy of order of court.
T'NiTED Statks of AMERICA, Indi^^u Territory. Southern District, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, Southern District, at a
term thereof begun and held at Ardmore, In the Indian Territory, on the 15th
day of November. A. D. 1897.
Present : The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Robert Goins et al. v. No. 127, The Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
At this time come on to be heard the report of the master in chancery, filed
herein June 23, 1897, and at the same time come the applicants by their attor-
neys; and it appearing to the court that the applicants herein through their
attorneys have excepted to the report of said master In chancery, wherein he
recommends that those of the applicants who are nonresidents of the Indian
Territory be denied the right to have their names enrolled as members of the
tribe of Choctaw Indians, and the court, after hearing said exceptions and be-
ing fully advised In the premises, is of the opinion that said exceptions be, and
the same are hereby, sustained; and it appearing to the court from the re|>on;
of said master and from the evidence filed herein that all of the applicants are
members of the tribe of Choctaw Indians;
It is therefore considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that Robert
< Joins and his wife, Elizabeth Goius, and Seaborn (4oins. Calvin (xolns, Caroline
Goins, John Goins, Elizabeth Goins, Minerva Goins. William Henry Goins. and
Samontha Goins, the children of Henry Goins. deceased, and James Goins and his
children, James Goins, jr., and Randolph Goins and Llzsie Goins; and Rayboni
(loins and children, Thomas L. (loins, William Goins, Collin Goifis, Ell Goins,
Rayborn Goins. Campbell Goins, Martha Margaret Goins, Missouri E. Goins,
Amanda May Goins. and Diukey Goins, and Reuben Goins, and children, Mary
(Joins, and Cordelia Goins. and Jeremiah Goins. jr.. and children, Monroe Gtilns,
William Goins. Frank Goins, and I^eonard Goins. and Mrs. Bvaline Paddieo, and
her children, Reuben Paddieo, Tasso Paddieo, John Paddieo, Evallne Paddieo.
Martha Paddieo, James Paddieo, and Amanda Paddieo, and the children of
(\'ii*ollue Morris, whose maiden name was Caroline Goins, to wit, Jerry M,
Morris, G. W. Morris, Spencer W. Morris, jr., Sarah Mort-ls, and Kansas Morris;
and Mrs. Emily Perrice. and G. W. Nevlls, her son by her first husband, W^Uliam
^L Nevlls, and her children by her second huslmnd, Antonio Perrice, to wit
Ike Perrice, Josephine Perrice, Mary Perrice, Anna Perrice, Alzona Perrice, and
Caroline Perrice, and Mrs. Mary Southward and her husband, W. C. Southward,
and their children, William M. Southward. Elizabeth Southward, John F. South-
ward, James Marion Stnithward, Jessie Myrtle Southward,and Maggie May South-
ward, and the children of Sallle Goins, who married J. M. Gardner, viz. James Mel-
ton Gardner, Margaret Liigeue Gardner. Manda Eldora Gardner, and Cora Lee
Gju-dner, and the said J. M. Gardner, and the children of J. M. Morris, who was a
son of Caroline Morris, viz, Ebenezer S. Morris. Gertrude E. Mof rls, Jesse W. Mor-
ris, Jesse Coleman Morris, and Augusta B. Morris, and the children of G. W. Mor-
ris, viz, Wllmuth Morris, Nora I^e Morris, Mollie Morris, Cora May Morris,
:iud Kanstis Viola Morris, and tlie children of Sallle Morris, who married Frank
C. Jones, viz, Frank C. Jones, James Jone?. Jesse Jones, and Gypsie Jones, and
the said Frank C. Jones, and the children of Josephine Marjories, who was a
daiighter of the said Emily Perrice, viz. Ignathia Marjories, Susie Marjories,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 375
and Renins Marjories, and the children of lite Perrlce, who was a son of Emily
Perrice, viz, Joe Perrlce and I^atia Perrlce, Jr., and the children of Mary Dins,
who was a daughter of Emily Perrlce, to wit, Eugene Dlas and Albert DIas, and
the children of Anna Androda, a daughter of Emily Perrlce, to wit, Clara And-
roda and Christoval Androda, and the grandchildren of Jeremiah Golns, to wit,
Mrs. Josephine Priest and her children by her former husband, namely, Adella
Taylor, Pearline Taylor, Anzo Taylor, William Martin Taylor, Josephine Taylor,
and Clara Taylor are all members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians and as such
are entitled to have their nameft enrolled as members of said tribe of Choctaw
Indians by blood, except as to the said W. C. Southward, who is a member of
.said tribe by intermarriage, and Elizabeth Goins, the wife of Robert Goins, who
is 8 meniber of said tribe by intermarriage.
It is further considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the Choctaw
Nation, the defendant, pay all costs in this behalf expended and incurred, for
which execution may issue.
It is further considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the clerk of
this court certify this judgment to the Commission of -the United States to the
Five Civilized Tribes for its observance. To which judgment of the court the
defendant, the Choctaw Nation, in open court duly excepted.
United States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a
true copy of an order made by said court onP the 2l8t day of December, 1897,
as appears from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, at my office In Ardmore,
In said district, this 10th day of March, A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
X. H. McCoy, Deputy.
David H. Folsom, Choctaw and Chickasaw.
Commission, Ko. — .
, 1899. Appeared before Dawes Commission at Atoka
and was rejected.
June 4, 1900. Again appeared before conmiission and was told
that he could not be enrolled.
The applicant is three-sixteenths Chickasaw and one-sixteenth
Choctaw. He was bom in Blue County, Choctaw Nation, in 1846,
His father was Noah Wall Folsom, who died in Blue County in
1860. His mother, Susan Folsom, was one-half Chickasaw. His
sister, Catherine Robinson (formerly MeGee), is now upon the final
rolls.
— , 1902. The Chickasaw Legislature by resolution re-
quested the enrollment of applicant.
The admitted facts as shown by the record in this case are: Was
a wanderer from 1868 to 1897, working upon the railroads and in the
mines throughout the West. In 1897 he returned to the Chickasaw
Nation, where he has lived ever since, but because his name does not
appear upon the tribal rolls prepared during his absence from home
he was by the commission refused enrollment upon the final rolls of
the tribe!
Counsel submit that Congress should enroll DaAid Folsom as a
citizen of the Chickasaw Nation.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
376 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
James A. Ci mmins et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission, No. R-379.
The adnytted facts as shown by the record in this case are :
leading claimant, J. A. Cummins, is a son of Mary Cummins, nee
Anderson, a half-blood Choctaw, who *was a daughter of Jennie
Anderson, a full-blood Choctaw, who, with her husband, Daniel
Anderson, a white man, removed with other Indians from Mississippi
in 1832 to the Choctaw Nation, w here they lived until their deaths.
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in a decision rendered Feb-
ruary 12, 1907. on a petition to have this case reconsidered, says:
It is time, as aUeped in the petition of tlie applicants, tbat Daniel Anderson,
alleged to be tlielr ancestor, was a recognized member of the Choctaw Nation
east of the Mississippi River In 1830, and was ti':in8iM)rted west by the Gov-
ernment, together with Iiis f.-niiily. consisting of 14 persons, arriving in tlie
Choctaw Nation west on February 11, 1S32. (Certified copy hereto attached.)
The names of claimant's mother's brothers and sisters appear on
the census roll of Jack Fork County for the year 1868 ana on suc-
ceeding census rolls of the nation. Claimant's mother and father
were then dead, and claimant was living in Texas with white people.
Claimants mother and father died in the Choctaw Nation about
1859, when claimant was less than 2 years of age. Claimant was
taken by his grandmother, Mrs. Cummins, a w^hite woman, across to
Texas Avhen about 3 years old and left with W. R. N. and his wife,
A, R. Mitchell, a white family. Later he was taken by them to
Arkansas and remained in that State with the Mitchells until 1883,
when he returned to the Choctaw Nation and located in Tobucksey
County, where he has since continuously resided. Claimant was
born in the Choctaw Nation, and Mrs. Xrtilley R. Mitchell, who
raised claimant, is still alive and resides in Washington County,
Ark., her post oflSce being Lincoln, Ark. She makes affidavit of the
aboVe facts.
The children of claimant's mother's brother, Daniel Anderson, to-
gether with their children, are regularly enrolled on the finally
approved rolls of the Choctaw Nation; Andel Anderson, claimant's
first cousin and a child of Daniel Anderson, claimant's mother's
brother, is enrolled on the final Choctaw roll, opposite No. 725;
Andel xVnderson's brother, William Anderson, and his sister, Salina
Moore, and their children, are enrolled upon the final roUs of tlie
Choctaw Nation.
At a session of the commission held at McAlester, beginning Sep-
tember 4 and ending September 13, 1899, claimant appeared and ap-
plied for the enrollment of himself and children. The record of the
examination is as follows:
Q. What is yonr name? — A. James A. Cnmnilns.
Q. How old are you? — A. Forty-two.
Q. Are you on the Choctaw rolls? — A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever been? — A. No, sir.
Q. Are your father and mother on the rolls In the Choctaw Nation? — ^A. I am
told that my mother Is on the rolls.
Q. Who told you that? — A. I had a lawyer to examine the rolls My mother
died in 1850 in Red River County, Choctaw Nation.
Commissioner McKennon. Enrollment is refused.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 377
November 25, 1899. Petition filed with the department sets out all
of the above facts that claimant is a son of Mary Anderson, a half-
breed Choctaw woman ; that he was bom in the Choctaw Nation ;
that he had resided continuously therein for the past 16 years; had
Tield land and issued permits the same as other Indian citizens; that
he went before the commission in September, 1899, and applied
for enrollment and was told that because his name did not appear
upon the 1893 or 1896 tribal rolls he could not be enrolled ; that he
had never attempted to be registered on one of the tribal rolls because
it was never considered necessary; and that many full-blood Indians
had not applied for registration and were not registered, but had
' always been recognized as Choctaws. Supporting the petition are the
affidavits of Sallie Moore, an enrolled Choctaw Indian; Andel An-
derson, an enrolled Choctaw Indian; Lewis Jackson, an enrolled
Choctaw Indian; William Anderson, an enrolled Choctaw Indian;
m well as the affidavits of W. R.. N. Mitchell and A. R. Mitchell,
his wife (the white family who raised claimant), testifying to the
truth of the allegations set out in the petition.
May 9, 1902. The commission rendered a decision denying James
A. Cummins, R. T. Ann Cummins, Bertie Emily Cummins, Oliver
Cody Cummins, Edith Ellen Cummins, Stephen Alexander Cum-
mins, Cicero Anderson Cummins, Grace Ona Cummins, Ella May
Cummins, and Cynthia A. Cummins, because their names did not
appear upon any tribal roll. ^
June 2, 1906. Petition was filed with the Secretary of the Interior
praying for the enrollment of claimants. In said petition the Secre-
tary was asked to enroll claimants under the decision in the Long
case, holding birth in the nation and residence therein sufficient with-
out tribal enrollment.
February 12, 1907. The Secretary rendered a decision denying said
petition.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that as the Indian blood
and tribal reco^ition of claimant's grandparents and parents is
conceded, as claimant was bom in the Choctaw Nation, that he is
in fact a born citizen of the nation, and that enrollment on one of
the tribal rolls was never necessary to establish his citizenship ; that
the fact that he was left an orphan when less than 2 years of age
and was raised by white people entitled claimant to the most favor-
able consideration ; and the further fact that upon his return to the
Choctaw Nation in 1883 he was permitted to hold land the same as
all native registered Choctaws, issued permits to white people, he
being subject to the process of the courts, his children educated in
the Choctaw schools at the expense of the Choctaw Nation, that he
and his children are entitled to enrollment. Those thus entitled, as
•shown by the records, are: James A. Cummins, Stephen Alexander
Cummins, Cicero Anderson Cummins, Grace Ona Cummins, Ella
May Cummins, Edith Ellen Cummins, R. T. Ann Thomas (nee
Cummins), and Birdie E. Long (nee Cummins).
(Eight in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Ballixger & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
378 5PIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS.
Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory.
Before me, the undersfpned, a notary public or clerk of the court, in and for
the county and State aforesaid, personally appeared Andel Anderson, who, after
being by me duly sworn, states that he is 56 years of age. a full-blood Choctaw
Indian, and a citizen of Tobucksey County, Ind. T., and that he Is personally
acquainted with James A. Cummins, of Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., who is an
applicant for citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T. ; and affiant further
states that the said James A. Cummins Is the Identical person he represents
himself to be in his apiillcation for said cltieenship in said nation, and that the
said James A. Cummins is a Choctaw Indian by blood as follows : Daniel Ander-
son Soui married Jennie, n full-blood Mississippi Choctaw Indian, In the Mis-
sissippi Choctaw Nation ; they had several children, one named James Cum-
mins, and they are the parents of James A. Cummins, this applicant for citiaen-
ahip in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T. He lives in the Territory.
Affiant further states that he has known the said James A. Cummins for the
pn.«?t several years, and knows that he is and has been recognized and treated
by his neighbors, acquaintances, and public generally as a person having Indian
blood; and the complexion, physical appearance, language, and manners of tue
said James A. Cummins indicated that the said James E. Cummins is of Indian
blood ; that from the above fscts and circumstances and from statements made
to me. by the said James A. Cummins affiant states that he has every reason to
believe, and does l>elieve and knows, that the said James A. Cummins is of
quarter or more Indian blood.
Affiant further states that he has no Interest whatever in the prosecution of
the claim of the said James A. Cummins to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation,
Ind. T.
Andeb (his X mark) Andebson.
AVltne^ :
J. B. Gbesham.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of September, A. D. 1899, and
I further certify that I am well acquainted with the said Andel Anderson.
fSEAL.l jAMtes E. ORiSHAM, Kot^nf Pmbiic.
My commission expires on the 20th day of November, 1000.
DeFABTI^ENT of the INTEBIOB,
Office of Indian Affairs,
yVashington, Bfarch t, 190S.
I. C. F. T>arral>ee, Actinp: Commissioner of Indian Affairs, do hereby certify
that the pai»er hereto attadicd is a true copy of the original as the same api>ear8
of record in this office.
In testimony whereof I have hei-eunto subscribed my mime and caused the
seal of this office to be affixed on the day and year flr.^t al)ove written.
[seal.] ^' ^^* I-ARBABteE,
Acting Oommisftioner.
Departmbnt of Tmc iNTEllOm,
Office of Indian Affairs,
Washington, February 12, J907.
The honorable the Skcrctary of the Interior.
Sir : I have the honor to Invite your attention to the inclosed letter of June
25, 1006, from Tarns Blxby. Commissioner to the Five Civilized Trtbes, who
says that on May 0, 1002, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes rendered
its decision refusing the application of J. A. Cummins et al. for enrollment as
citizens of the Choctaw Nati(m, and on June 12, loas, this action was approved
by the department; that on November 16, 1905, the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes rendered a de<islon declining to receive the application of
Sarah Elms and her children for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 379
Xatlon and refusing to Identify them as Mississippi Choctaws, wliich action
was approved by the department on January 18, 1906.
Commissioner Blxby now transmits a petition of J. O. Pool, an attorney at
law. for the reopening of the consolidated cases of James A. Cummins et al.
and Samh Ann Elms et al. for the consideration of the department.
It 18 true. 08 alleged in the petition of the applicants, that Daniel Anderson,
alleged to be their ancestor, was a recognized member of the Choctaw Nation
east of the Mississippi River in 1830, and was transported west by the Gov-
oiTunent, together with his family, consisting of 14 persons, arriving In the
< Choctaw Nation west on February 11, 1832. It is shown by the records sub-
mitted by the applicants and admitted In their argument that neither they nor
their parents were ever enrolled as citissens of the Choctaw Nation, their
i*ntire contention being based on the enrollment and recognition of the grtn<jK
l-arents of the principal applicants and the great-grandparents of their children.
In tlie Judgment of the office a failure of recognition of any of the membefs
<»f the family during a period of 50 years and the absence of their names from
the tribal rolls must be conceded to be evidence of fiailure of recognition, and
the department would not be Justified in holding at the present time that these
persons are entitled to enrollment.
For this reason I recommend that the petition for rehearing be denied, and
Inclose the original records in the cases.
Very respectfully, C. F. Labbabee,
Actinff Commissioner.
John R. Kirk et al.
Commission jacket No. Rr-155.
August 31, 1896. Original application filed with the commission
for tfc enrollment of Amanda >i. Kirk as a citizen of the Chdctaw
Nation by intermarriage, and her children, John R. and Malindi,
as citizetis by blood.
Amanda 5f. Kirk claimed her right by reason of her marriage to
John C. Kirk, deceased, who was a citizen of the Choctaw Nation
by blood.
November 10, 1896. Commission rendered its decision in words
and figures as follows, to wit : " Rejected." From this decision there
was no appeal.
November 13, 1899. John R. Kirk, 14 years of age, appeared before
the commission at McAlester, Ind. T., and applied lor the enroll-
ment of himself and his sister, Malinda Kirk, 12 years old. The
record shows that claimants are the children of John C. Kirk, a
half-blood Choctaw Indian who died when applicant, John R. Kirk,
was 4 years old and when his sister was an infant; that claimants
were bom in the Choctaw Nation: that there mother was a white
woman, who upon the death of her husband married a man by
the name of Blackburn; that upon the death of claimants' father
the two children, John R. and Malinda, were taken by a white man
by the name of John R. Davis to Oklahoma, where they lived for
a period of five vears; that the said John R. Davis then rd^urned
to the Choctaw 5fation, bringing the children with him, and that
they have since continuously resided therein.
It appears from the affidavits of Hawkins Seeley and Billie Duke
that the father of John C. Kirk, a white man, went to the war and
never returned, and from the affidavits of Richard Diiran and
Nancy Under\^ood that John C. Kirk's mother, Annie Kirk, n^
Digitized-by V^OOQIC
380 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Parker, a full-blood Indian, died in the year 1863, thus leaving John
C. Kirk, father of the claimants, an orphan.
It further appears that although the father of applicants re-.
f^ived his shar^ of the net proceeds claim, paid in 1889, and was
born and lived in the Choctaw Nation, where he was always recog-
nized as a Choctaw, his name is not on any of the tribal rolls.
It further appears from the record that on November 14, 1899, the
mother of the claimants appeared before the commission at Mc-
Alester and made application for the enrollment of the children,
John R. ICirk and Malinda Kirk,* as citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation. (Copy of the examination records of John R. Kirk, John R.
Davis, and Novella Blackburn are hereto attached and mark^ " Ex-
hibits A-A 1.")
The affidavits of Billie Duke and Hawkins Seeley, John R. Davis
and E. J. Davis, Richard Duran and Nancy Underwood arc hereto
attached and marked " Exhibits B, C, and D."
April 14, 1902. Commission rendered its decision denying claim-
ants because their names and the names of their father did not ap-
pear on the tribal Indian roll. (Copy of the said opinion hereto at-
tached and marked " Exhibit E.")
May 14, 1902. Decision of the commission approved by the Sec-
retary.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that to deny these in-
fant children their clear right to enrollment as citizens by blood of
the Choctaw Nation because their names, or the name of their father,
do not appear on the tribal rolls is gross injustice in view of the fact
that their father was left an orphan when an infant and John R.
and Malinda Kirk were taken by white people to raise when the
former was only 4 years old and the latter but 2 years old. The
blood and residence of the claimants is clear and they should be
enrolled.
(Two in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field,
Attorney for Claimants.
ElXHIBIT A.
Ck)MM1SSI0N TO THE FiVE CiVILIZED*TBIBES,
MoAlesteb, Ind. T.,
November 13, 1899.
I.i the application of John R. Kirk and sister for enrollment as Choctaws,
*>efng sworn and examined by CJommlssioner McKennon, he states :
Q. What Is your name?— A. John R. Kirk.
Q. How old are you? — ^A. Fourteen.
Q. Where were you bom and raised? — A. I was born In the Choctaw Nation.
Q. Have you lived there all of your life? — ^A. Most all of my life. .
Q. Where did you live besides that? — ^A. In Oklahoma.
Q. How long? — ^A. About six years.
Q. When did you come back to the Choctaw Nation from Oklahoma? — ^A.
About five years ago.
Q. You had been six years there and returned here five years ago from
Oklahoma? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any father and mother living?— A. I have a mother living;
iny father is dead.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 381
Q. Is your mother a white woman or an Indian? — A. She is a white woman.
Q. Was your father an Indian? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind?— A. Choctaw.
Q. What was his name? — A. John C. Kirk.
Q. Do you linow how long he has been dead? — ^A. I was about 4 years old
when he died.
Q. Do you know whether your father was a recognized Choctaw citizen or
not? — ^A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know whether he was ever on the rolls or not — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Have you got any brother or sister living? — ^A. I have got a sister.
Q. What's her name?— A. Mallnda Kirk.
Q. How old is she? — ^A. She Is about 12 years old.
Q. What is your mother's name? — ^A. Novella Kirk. She has married again,
and her name is now Novella Blackburn.
John R. Davis, being sworn and examined, states:
Q. What is your name? — A. John R. Davis.
Q. How old are you?— A. Fifty-six.
Q. You are a white man? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't claim citizenship in the Choctaw Nation ?— A. Xo, sir.
Q. Do you know John Kirk? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And his sister, Malinda Kirk?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know their father?— A. I did.
Q. Was he an Indian?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of an Indian?— A. He claimed and showed to be a half Choc-
taw Indian.
Q. How long did you know him? — ^A. I knew him about 20 years, up until he
died ; he died 2 years after Oklahoma opened up.
Q. About how many years ago was that? — A. I think about 10 years, it
seems to me; I had beJ^nin Oklahoma 2 years when he died.
Q. Did you know their mother?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is she? — A. She is a white woman.
Q. The mother of these two children? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Where were they married? — A. In Red River County. Tex.
Q. Have these children always lived here in the Clioctaw Nation? — A. With
the exception of pretty near 5 years; I kept them in Oklahoma af er their
daddy died.
Q. When did you return to the Choctaw Nation?— A. Going on 5 years ago.
Q. Are they living with you now?— A. Yes, sir; this boy does; the girl is
going to school at Pauls Valley.
Q. Do you know whether their father was ever a recognized Choctaw citi-
zen?— ^A. I don't know that he was ever on the rolls.
Chick Com Peter May tubby. Did you try to enroll these children at Tlsho-
mlngo?— A. I tried to enroll them at Stonewall, but not at Tishomingo.
Commissioner McKennon. These two children are not on any of the Choctaw
rolls.
Examined by Choctaw Commissioner Lewis :
Q. Did these children draw land out In Oklahoma?— A. No, sir.
Commissioner McKennon :
Q. Did they draw money?— A. These applicants' father got money at Atoka:
I don't know how much he got.
Q. That was the net proceeds?— A. That was in 1889, I think.
Commissioner McKennon. That was the net proceeds, and was dlstrlbutetl
to the heirs of the parties entitled to It.
WrrifEfls. The only time the children ha? ever been out of the Territory was
when their father died, and I come and got them and took them to Oklahoma
and kept them there, and when they come back the Indians that knew them
let them go to the Indian schools; that was the Chickasaw schools.
Commissioner McKennon : Enrollment refused.
Department of the Interior,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
I hereby certify, upon my official oath as stenographer to above-named com-
mission, that this transcript is a true, full, and correct translation of my steno-
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
382 FIVE CIVIUZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Exhibit A1.
Commission to the Five Civu.ized Tbib£S.
McAlester, lud. T., ybvemler 14, 1899.
lu tlie application for the euroUmeiU of John and M. C. Kirk, as Cboctaws.
Novella Blackburn, being sworn and examined by Commissioner McKennon,
testifies as follows:
Q. What is your name? — A. Novella Blackburn.
Q. How old are yoH^—A. Thirty.
Q. You are a white woman? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you have two children; what are their names?— A. Jobn Kirk
and M. C. Kipk.
Q. How old is John? — A. Fourteen years old.
Q. How old Is the other? — A. She is 12 years old.
Q. Application was made for them in 1896 to the Dawes Commission, and
they were rejected? — A. Yes, sir; they were overlooked; we had no attorney
whatever.
Q. They were rejected by the Dawes Conuiiission?^A. Yes, sir.
Q. That Judgment was not appealed from? — ^A. No, sir.
Commissioner McKennon. That judgment is absolutely final against tliem.
and their enrollment is, of course, refused.
Department of the Inteiiob,
Commission to the Five Civiu^ed Tbibes.
I hereby certif>' ui)on my official oath as stenographer to above-namod com-
mission that this transcript is a true, full, and correct translation of nay
stenographic notes.
M. D. Gbeen.
B3XHIBIT B,
Indian Tebritory, fiouthem District:
In the matter of the application for enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation of Amanda N. Blackburn, John C. Kirk,. and Mallnda C. Kirk on this the
26th day of June, 1899, before me a notary public In and for said district and
Territory, Willie Duke (alias Willis Suchy) and Hawkins Seeley, the former
of Jesse, Ind. T., and who by me being first duly sworn did ui)on their respec-
tive oaths state and depose as follows:
That they were personally each well acquainted with John C. Kirk in his
lifetime, and who was the father of said John R. and Mallnda Kirk, and the
husband of Amanda N. Blnckburn; that they knew said John C. Kirk wh«i
he was a small boy In the Choctaw Nation ; that he was a Choctaw Indian by
blood, and they knew him by the name of John Parker, and his mother's name
was May Parker; that was her Indian name but she married a white man by
the name of Kirk who went off to the war and never came back. May Parker
had two children, a boy and a girl. We do not know what became of the girl.
We saw John Kirk, the father of said John R. and Mallnda Kirk, often until be
moved from our part of the nation to near Purcell, Ind. T. We knew him after
he married Amanda Blackburn, n^ Davis, the mother of the children John R.
and Mallnda Kirk. After they were married they lived for over three ye^rs in
the same neighborhood with us. and we were at their house frequently, and
we saw the said children after they were born and knew them to be the chil-
dren of said John Kirk whom we knew as a boy by the name of Parker. He
took the name of Kirk after his father whan he became a grown man. Johu
Kirk (Alias Parker) was undoubtedly a Choctaw Indian. Our mother was a
sister of May Parker's mother and we always called John Kirk (Parker) a
ccusin of ours. He looked like an Indian. He was dark skinned, black, straight
hair, and brown eyes.
(Signed) Bille Dukk (Billie Duke).
(Signed) Hawkins (his X mark) Seeley.
Witness to mark:
T. N. P ATM ELL.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 26th day of June, 1899.
[SEAL.] T. N. Palmett,
Notary Public
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 383
(Endorsed on back: "Department of the Interior, received Jan. 6, 1900. Xu.
56. Indian Territory division- Affidavit of Billy Dulse." "1021. Department
of the Interior, received Oct. 2, 1899. No. 2827. Indian Territory division.
John K. Kirk et al. vs. Choctaw Nation. Affidavit of Blllle Duke and Hawkins
Seeley."
Exhibit C.
Indian Terbitory; Southern District:
On this the 2l8t day of July, 1899, personally appeared l>efore me a notary
public in and for said district and Territory, J. R. Davis and E. J. Davis, resi-
dents of the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., and stated In relation to the Choctaw
citizenship of J. R. Kirk and Mallnda Kirk, orphan children of J. C. Kirk, de-
ceased, as follows. That he (J. C. Kirk) lived In the house with them for
two years In Texas, and they lived with him in the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nation for five years; that he died in April, 1891, at Purcell, Chicasaw Nation,
and was burled at Purcell Chickasaw Nation, and that they had taken his chil-
dren and had taken care of them for six years In Oklahoma. And I, J. R. Davis,
brought them back to Stonewall, Chickasaw Nation In August. 1897. to be en-
rolled by the Dawes Commission, and they were rejected by said commissio.i
because they were not found upon the Indian enrollment, and it was stated
bj* BIIJ BowHn that their names had been J;aken from the enrollment by and
through the directions of Palmer Mosby, governor of the Chickasaw Nation,
also that said children have been attending the Indian schools at CSolbert and
Pauls Valley before and since said rejection. And they further state that they
first became acquainted with their grandfather who was a white man, formed
said acquaintance In the Choctaw Nation near where Antler now is In tho
yenr »lxty-two or three, and that Kirk volunteered In the United States Army
and died In Little Rock, Ark., during the war, and their mother died In 1863.
Her maiden name was Annie Parker: and they further state that said J. C.
Kirk, now deceased (who was the father of J. R. Kirk and Mallnda Kirk), was
taken care of byChas. Payne, a white man who had taken him down on Red
Iliver with whom he lived for three or four years. He then went back to Choc-
taw Nation and afterwards lived with him for two years In Red River County,
Tfrx.. prior to his marriage with Novellan Davis, their, daughter. < They also
st«t# thnt when he was with the Indians that he was known as John Parker.
or John Counter Parker, Parker being the maiden name of his mother.
And I, J. R. Davis, further state that I went with J. C. Parker to Atoka In
time of the payment of the annuity In the year 1899, and he drew his annuity
and his citizenship was not questioned nor disputed. He drew said money In
the name of Parker, which was the name of his mother prior to her marriage
with Kirk.
And they also state that the mother of J. C. Kirk, alias J. C. Parker, was a
full-blood Choctaw Indian,
(Signed) J. R. Davis.
(Signed) E. J. Davis (his X mark).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 21st day of July, 1899.
[SEAL.! (Signed) A. B. Swanson,
Notary Public.
Exhibit I>.
Indian Territoby, Southern District:
On this the 20th day of July, 1899, personally appeared before me, a notary
public in and for said district and Territory. Rlchai-d Duran and Nancy Under-
wood, citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T.. and stated In relation to the
Choctaw cltlzenshlpof J. R. Kirk and Mallnda Kirk, orphan chlldTon of J. C. Kirk,
deceased, as follows: That they knew J. C. Kirk and his motlier In the Kimlshl
Mountains in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., and that his mother was a full-
blood Choctaw Indian, and that her maiden name was Annie Parker, and that
she died in time of the rebellion between the States In the year 1S63. and
that J. C. Kirk, deceased, drew iu(mey in ISSO in the Choctaw Nation at Atoka
in the name of Parker, his mother's name before marriage; and they further
Digitized by V^OOQl€
384 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
state that the said J. R. Kirk and Malinda Kirk, whose names appear in this
affidavit, are the identical persons desiring enrollment before the Dawes Com-
mission, Indian Territory, and that they are the children of J. C. Kirk, de-
ceased, whose Indian name was Jhen Parker, or by which he was known among
the Indians.
(Signed) Richard Dcran (his x mark).
(Signed) Nancy Underwood (her x mark).
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this the 20th day of July, 1899.
IsKAL.] (Signed) A. B. Swanson,
Notary Public.
Endorsed on back : " Department of the Interior, received Jan. 6, 1900. No.
56. Indian Territory Division. John R. Kirk et al. vs. Choctaw Nation Affi-
davits."
kxiiibit e.
Dbpartment of the Interior,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application of John R. Kirk and his sister, Malinda Kirk,
for the enrollment of themselves as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
decision.
The record in this case shows that on November 13. 1899. the api)licant, John
R. Kirk, appeared l)efore the commission at McAlester, Ind. T., and there and
then made personal application for the enrollment of himself and his minor
sister, Malinda Kirk, as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
It appears from the records of this commission that Amanda Kirk filed the.
original petition for the admission of John R. Kirk and his sister, Malinda
Kirk, children of John C. Kirk, as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation with the
commission under the provisions of the act of Congress of June 10, 1896. (29
Stats.. 321.)
Under this act the apj>llcants submitted their rights as citizens of the Chicka-
saw Nation for adjudication to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes,
and in the Chickasaw case. No. 68, the commission denied the applicants
citizenship in the Chickasaw Tribe, and no appeal was jtrosecuted therefrom to
the United' States court in Indian Territory, and the rights of applicants as
Chickasaws became res adjudicata.
Applicants now ask to be enrolled as citizens of the Clioctaw Nation, and the
evidence shows that they are the children of John C. Kirk, a Choctaw Indian
by blood, and It further shows that John C. Kirk's name was never on any of
the rolls of said tribe, nor was he ever recognized by any of the tribal authori-
ties as a citizen of said nation, nor does it appear that said Jotm C. Kirk, the
fatlier of these applicants, was ever admitted to citizenship by the legally con-
stituted authorities of said Choctaw Nation.
It does not api)ear from the evidence offered in support of this application
and an examination of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation in the possession
of the commission that the applicants have ever been enrolled as citizens of
the Choctaw Nation, nor do their names appear on any of the tribal rolls of
the Choctaw Nation in the possession of the commission, nor does it appear
that they have ever been admitted to Choctaw citizenship by the legally consti-
tuted authorities of the said nation. '
It further ai)i)ears from an examination of the records in the possession of
the Commission to the Five Civilized lYibes that neither of the applicants have
ever been admitted to citizenship In the Choctaw Nation by the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tril)es, or by a decree of the United States court in Indian
Territory, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress of June 10,
38UG. (29 Stats.. 321. supra.)
The act of Congress of June 28. 1898 (30 Stats., 495), provides as follows:
•• Said commission is authorized and directed to make correct rolls of the
citizens by blootl of all the other tribes (excepting Cherokee), eliminating from
the tribal rolls such names as may have been placed thereon by fraud or with-
out authority of law, enrolling such only as may have lawful rights thereto,
and their descendants born since such rolls were made, with such intermarried
Digitized by V^OOgie fr^fl
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 386
white persons as may be entitled to Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship under
the treaties and the laws of said tribes."
It is therefore the opinion of this commission that John R. Kirlc and Mallnda
Kirk are not lawfully entitled to be enrolled as members of the Clioctaw Trlb^
of Indians in the Indian Territory, and that their application as such should
be refused, and it is so ordered.
The Commission to the Five Civilized Tbibes.
, Acting Chairman.
, Commissioner,
Muskogee, Ind. T., April IJf, J902,
— , CommisHoner.
Crawford Marlow et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 1274 — 1896.
Andrew Beal et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 77 — 1896.
Maria H Cai^weuJ et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 709 — 1896.
Jane Marrs et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 28 — 1896. United States court, No. 88,
McAlester; citizenship court. No. 109, MeAlester.
Epsie Underwood et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 427 — 1896. United States court, No. 88,
McAlester; citizenship court, No. 78.
^ George Lee Whttb et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 545 — 1896. United States court, No. 64,
McAlester; citizenship court. No. 125.
(Choctaws.)
Crawford Marlow, Martha Beal, Mariah Caldwell. Jane Marrs,
Epsie Underwood, and Minnie Lee White, the principal ajjplicants in
the above six cases, being full brothers and sisters, and claiming their
blood rights through the same common ancestors, these six cases will
be herein considered together.
September 9, 1896. Application submitted to the conunission for
the enrollment of Crawford Marlow, Etta J. Marlow, Reuben Mar-
low, William J. Marlow, George Marlow, Ola Marlow, as citizens
by blood, except Etta J. Marlow, who claimed by intermarriage.
December 8, 1896. The commission rendered a decision admitting
claimants as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, in conformity with
their application. No appeal.
September 9, 1896. Application submitted by Andrew Beal, ask-
ing that he be " enrolled as an intermarried citizen of the Choctaw
Nation." The applicant claims his right to enrollment by reason of
his marriage to Martha Ann Marlow, the latter claiming to be a
Choctaw Indian by blood, and also " for the reason that on the 25th
A\ Digitized by V^OOQIC
^ 69282—13 25 ^
886 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
day of October, 1890, my wife, Martha Beal, myself, and children,
were admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by an act of
the Choctaw Council, and from which there was no ai>peal taken."
December 1, 1896. Decision of commission admitting applicants,
from which no appeal was taken.
September 3. 1896. Application made to the commission for the
admission of Jane Marrs (now dead) and her children and grand-
children, as follows: Ellen Alderson, Richard Alderson, Julia Mav
Alderson, Barley H. Alderson, Julia Hamilton, Delia May Hamil-
ton, Reuben Harrison, Mrs. Jane Marrs, Margaret Marrs, Clare Bell
Marrs, William K. Marrs, James Marrs, Racheal Marrs, Samuel
Marrs, Bertha Marrs, Thomas Marrs, John Marrs, Mary Pritchard,
Flora Pritchard, John Pritchard, Dennis Pritchard, Jane Pritch-
ard, Rebecca Smith, Jane Smith, as citizens of the Choctaw Nation
by blood.
December 1, 1896. The commission rendered its decision, denying
said applicants.
September 9, 1896. Application was submitted to the commission
for the admission of Epsie Underwood and her husband, James M.
Underwood, and their children, William A. Underwood, John R
Underwood, Margaret M. Underwood, Bettie F. Underwood, Aiige-
line Underwood, Nellie Van Underwood, Leopold Underwood, ml-
helmina Underwood, as citizens of the Choctaw Nation by blood,
except James M. Underwood, who claimed by reason of his inter-
marriage to his wife, Epsie Underwood, nee Marlow.
December 2, 1896. The commission rendered its decision, denying
all said applicants.
September 8, 1896. Application was made to the commission for
the admission of George Lee IVhite and his wife, Minnie Lee White,
nee Marlow, and their children and grandchildren. Claude Jackson
White, Mirtie Estella White, George Thomas White, Jasper Marlow,
Robert Crawford Marlow, Halie Margaret Marlow, Earnest Jackson
Marlow, Roy Marlow, and 16 others (who are not naentioned here
because they were subsequently denied by the commission and the
United States court) as citizens by blooS of the Choctaw Nation,
being nonresidents.
December 2, 1896. The commission rendered its decision, denying
all of the claimants.
No appeals were taken in the case of Crawford Marlow, Commis-
eion No. 1274, Andrew Beal, Commission No. 77, and Mariah Cald-
well, Commission No. 709. Appeals were taken to the United States
court, central district, Indian Territory, at McAlester, in the cases of
Jane Marrs et al., Epsie Underwood et al., and Minnie Lee White
et al., all claiming through the same common ancestor, Jane Marrs,
Epsie Underwood, and Minnie Lee White being full sisters. Refer-
ence, therefore, to the evidence offered before the commission and the
United States court in these cases will be here referred to as one
case.
The principle applicants, in their separate petitions, allege that they
are the children of one John Patterson, a member of the Choctaw
Tribe of Indians, who resided in Mississippi in 1830 ; that the other
applicants are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of said
John Patterson ; that they are all citizens of the Choctaw Nation by
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 387
blood and residence; that the majority of them have resided in the
Choctaw Nation for many years and have always been recognized as
members of the Choctaw Tribe. Many depositions and affidavits of
prominent Indian citizens appear in the record setting out the relation
of the claimants to the said John Patterson and certif>'ing to. the
residence of the claimants in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations
and their recognition by the Choctaws and Chickasaws as citizens
of the Choctaw Nation. The attorneys for the nations were present
when the depositions were taken and examined the witnesses.
There appears in the record a certified copy of the act of the
Choctaw Council admitting Martha Beal, sister of the principal
applicants, and her children as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, of
which the following is a literal copy :
AN ACT Establishing the citizenship of Marth Beal and othern.
Be it enacted hy the General Council of the Choctaic Nation aftscmhicd: The
citizenship of the followlDg-iiamed persons Is established hereby, to wit:
Martha Beal, her husband, Andrew Beal, and their children, Reuben Beal,
Missouri Beal, Becltey Beal, ThoiuHs Beal, Bill Beal, Margaret Beal, Pinloiey
Beal, Andy Beal, and they are hereby decreed citizens of the Choctaw Nation
and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such.
Approved October 25, 1890.
W. W. Jones, P, t\ C. N.
(Great seal of the Choctaw Nation.)
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy from the orig-
inal act of the Choctaw General Council, passed and approved at the October
term thereof, 1890.
Witness my hand and the great seal of the Choctaw Nation this 1st day of
August, 1896.
(Signed) P. B. Jackson,
National Secretary, Choctaw Nation,
The records of the tommission show that Crawford Marlow and
his immediate family were admitted to citizenship by the Choctaw
Council.
On page 54 of the journal of the citizenship committee of the
Choctaw Council for 1892 appears the following record entry :
Wednesday morning, 19th day of October. 1892. Committee on citizenship
met on the 19th day of October, 1892. Quorum present. Mr. I). D. Durant was
recalled and testified in claim George L. White et al. for citizensliip (claim),
lifter he gave in his testimony in the presence of Joe Carley, D. A. Homer, L. H.
Williams, and Hall Jones; after hearing the testimony in the case, ordered
the claimants to be recognized to citizenship in the C?hoctaw Nation. Motion
was made by Attorney Gardner to add the names of Missouri Beal and her
children, inserted the following persons. Order to be drafted, to wit, viz:
Crawford Marlow, Jasper Marlow and four children, Synthla Ann Mariow.
M. White and her children, G. L. White. J. R. White, Jasper White, Epsie
Glove, n6e Underwood, n6e Marlow, and her children, John, age 15 years,
William, age 15 yetirs, Margaret. 11 years, Angil, 7 years, Bettie Underwood,
age 9 years, Lillie Underwood, 4 years, I^e Podd, 2 years, Wilhelm. 1 year;
Mariah Crawford, u^ Marlow. Jane Marrs, n(?e Marlow, Missouri Benl, nP^e
Marlow, and her child, George Beal. Approved by H. L. Williams, natlom^l
secretary, by D. A. Homer. Moved and seconded by 1). A. Homer, the com-
mittee adjourned.
Henry Byington, C!vrk.
October 19. 1892.
On the opposite page is the journal entry :
session, A
[•tober, 181
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Tushkahoma, capital, Choctaw Nation, October session, A. D. 1892. G. li,
White was taken up and allowed tbis 18th day of October, 1892.
388 FIVE CIVILIZED. TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The record does not disclose thiat any action was taken by the
Choctaw Council on the applications of Jane Marrs, Epsie Under-
wood, George Lee White, and their families, but it is alle^d that
the council broke up in a drunken row, which probably explains why
the other families were not admitted.
Accompanying the application of Jane Marrs is the affidavit of
Henry Byington, in which he states:
I was the attorney for Mrs. Beal when she was admitted to the right of
citizenship in the Choctaw Xatjon, In October. 1800, and Mrs. Jane Marrs w.is
embodied In the application of Mrs. Martha Beal as her sister.
It further app^rs from the record that all of the Beal family
received their share of the 1893 leased-district money, and the same
is true of Crawford Marlow and his family.
The record discloses, however, that Crawford Marlow and his
wife and family, and Martha Beal and her husband, Andrew Beal
and their children were all admitted by the Choctaw Council as
citizens of the Choctaw Nation by act approved October 25, 1890.
The names of many of the Marrs, Mariows, Beals, Underwoods,
A\Tiites, and Caldwells appear on the county rolls of Blue, Jack Fork,
Sans Bois, and other counties, thus indicating the tribal recognition
of these families.
The record as presented to the United States court conclusively
established the fact that the Marrs, Beals, Mariows, Underwoods,
Caldwells, and Whites all occupied identically the same status as to
blood and residence, with the exception of a part of the White
family; that Martha Beal had been duly admitted as a member of
the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by the Choctaw Council on October
26, 1890; that Crawford Marlow and his family had been admitted;
that the Whites, Underwoods, Mariows, and Marrs had applied for
citizenship to the Choctaw Council in October, 1892; that the said
committee, on October 18, 1892, recommended their admission, al-
though the record fails to disclose what action was taken thereon.
January 19, 1898. Final Judgment was entered by the United
States court in the case of Jane Marrs, adjudging the following
Sersons to be citizens of the Choctaw Nation : Jane Marrs, Margaret
[arrs. Ellen Alderson, Rebecca Smith, Mar^^ Pritchard, Julia Hamil-
ton, Samuel Marrs, Thomas Marrs, John Marrs, Clara Bell Marrs,
William K- Marrs, James Marrs, Rachel Marrs, Richardson M. Al-
derson, Julia M. Alderson, Barley H. Alderson, Reuben Harrison,
Jane Smith.
(Certified copy of judgrnent hereto attached.)
August 24, 1897. Final judgment was entered in the case of Epsie
Underwood et al., admitting tne following persons to citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation: Epsie Underwood, William Underwood, John
Underwood, Margarette Underwood Elizabeth Underwood, Ange-
line Underwood, Nellie Underwood, Leopold Underwood. Mena
Underwood.
(Certified cx)py of which is hereto attached.)
July 13, 1897. Judgment was entered in the case of Greorge Lee
White et al., admitting the following persons to citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation: Geo^e Lee White, Minnie Lee White, Claud
Jackson White, Mirtie Estella White, George Thomas White, Jasper
Digitized by S^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 389
Marlow, Robert Crawford Marlow, Haley Marguerite Marlow,
Earnest Jackson Marlow, and Roy Marlow.
(Certified copy of judgment hereto attached.)
December 17, 1902. By decree of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizen-
ship court in the " Test case," the jud^mxents of the United States
court in the cases of Jane Marrs et al., George Lee White et al., and
Epsie Underwood et al., were set aside and vacated.
The findings of the Dawes Commission, admitting Crawford Mar-
low and his family, Andrew Beal, the latter as an intermarried by
reason of his marriage to Martha Beal, and Mariah Caldwell and her
family, were not affected by the decree of the citizen3hip court, and
remained intact.
Subsequently the above cases of Jane Marrs et al., Epsie Under-
wood et al., and George Lee White et al. were certified to the citizen-
ship court for trial de novo. Evidence was taken in these cases
before the citizenship court, and at the March term, 1904, an opinion
was rendered by Foote, associate judge, holding that each and every
one of the claimants were not entitled to citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation.
By decrees rendered March 24, 28, and 29, 1904, the claimants in
the eases of Epsie Underwood et al., George Lee White et al., and
Jane Marrs et al., respectively, were all denied citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation.
FULL BROTHER AND SISTERS OP THOSE DENIED, TOGETHER WITH THEIR
FAMILIES ENROIXED.
Crawford Marlow (brother of Jane Marrs, Espie Underwood, and
Minnie Lee White) and his wife, Etta J. Marlow, a white woman,
and their children, Reuben, William J., George, and Ola Marlow,
having been admitted by the commission in 1896, and no appeal hav-
ing been taken by the nations to the United States court, their case
did not go to the citizenship court. They again made application
to the commission under the act of June 28, 1898; the commission
again inquired into their rights, and recommended their enrollment.
On December 2, 1904, and November 16, 1904, respectively, the Sec-
retary approved their enrollment, and their names appear on the .
final rolls by blood and intermarriage opposite the following num-
bers:
Choctaw Wood roll : 15685, 15686, 15687, 15688, 15689, respectively.
March 15, 1905. Application was made to the commission for the
enrollment of Claud Crawford Marlow, infant child of Reuben Mar-
low, and on July 22, 1905, he was ordered enrolled by the Secretary
of the Interior, and his name appears on the final roll of newborns
oppo.^ite No. 303.
August 14, 1899. Martha Beal, being dead, Andrew Beal, her hus-
band, an intermarried citizen, applied to the commission for the
enrollment of himself as an intermarried citizen, and for his children
as citizens by blood of the nation. Martha Beal, through whom all
of applicants derive their right, is a full sister of Jane Marrs, Epsie
Underwood, and Miimie I-^ee White, all of whom, with their families,
were rejected by the citizenship court.
Testimony was taken before the commission, and Reuben Beal,
Arthur Beal, Johnnie Beal. Jessie Beal, Mary Beal, Ida Beal, and
• Digitized by V^OOQ IC
390 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Henry Beal were recommended to be enrolled, and on Pecember 2,
1904, the Secretary approved their enrollment, and their names ap-
pear on the final Choctaw blood rolls opposite Nos. 9635, 15728, 15729,
15747, 0636, 9637, 9638.
On September 23, 1905, the Secretarv approved the enrollment
of Ina Beal, infant child of Reuben Beal.
Andrew Beal, the white husband of Martha and father and
li^randfather of the above-enrolled Indians, was enrolled by the com-
mission as an intermarried citizen, and his enrollment approved by
the Secretary on August 22, 1905. March 4, 1907, the Secretary
strtick his name f nmi the approved roll. January 19, 1909, in accord-
ance with the decision of tne Supreme Court of the United States
in the Goldsby- Allison cases, the Secretary reinstated Andrew Beal's
name on the rolls.
September 1, 1809. Application was again made to the commis-
sion for the enrollment of Mariah Caldwell and her children, Thomas
Caldwell, Marion Caldwell, and Margaret Caldwell, as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation by blood. Testimony was taken, and the commission
found them entitled to enrollment; and on April 11, 1903, their en-
rollment was approved by the Secretary. Tneir names appear on
the final blood roll of the Choctaw Nation opposite the xoUowing
numbers: 14415, 14416, 14417, and 14418.
Applications were in 1899 made to the commission for the enroll-
ment of all those persons admitted by the United States court in the
eases of Jane Marrs et al., Martha Beal et al., and George Lee White
et al., and they were enrolled. Subsequently the judgments of the
TTniteil States courts admitting said claimants were vacated by the
citizenship court, and the commission reopened said cases and dis-
missed the applications.
Applications wei^e duly submitted to the commission for the en-
rollment of the following newborn children to those persons in-
cluded in the said United States court judgments: Henry Liee White,
John Hansom White, and Jessica White, children of George Lee
White; January 21, 1902, Willey May Marrs, child of John Marrs;
April 8, 1902, jferry Alderson, child of Ellen Alderson ; September 6,
1899, Archie L. Marrs; March 28, 1902, Clarence J. Marrs, children
of Samuel Marrs; May 24, 1901, Paul Eddison Hodges, child of
Julia M. Hodges, formerly Alderson; June 5, 1900, Becca Pritchard
and Icy Pritchard, children of Mary Pritchard ; September 6, 1899,
Thadeus Hamilton; February 24, 1902, Tandy Hamilton, September
1), 1902, Reuben H. Hamilton, children of Julia A. Hamilton; and
September 6, 1899, Jane Marrs, child of Margaret Marrs, deceased.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
These f act.« are undisputed : Jane Marrs, Epsie Underwood, to-
gether with their children and grandchildren, and Minnie Lee White,
all of whom were denied by the citizenship court, are full sisters of
Martha Beal, Crawford Marlow, and Mariah Caldwell, all of whom,
togetlier with their intermarried spouses and their children and
grandchildren, are enrolled on the final rolls of the Choctaw Nation
as citizens by blood and intermarriaga Jane Marrs, Epsie Under-
wood, and Minnie Lee White had the same residence and Wood
qualifications as did Martha Beal, Crawford Marlow, and Mariah
Digitized by V^OOQIC
PIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 391
Caldwell ; they had each applied to the. Choctaw citizenship com-
mittee for the admission or themselves and families, and the com-
mittee recommended all the cases favorably. The council acted upon
the cases of Martha Beal and her family and Crawford Marlow and
his family, and failed to pass the bills for the admission of the
families of Jane Marrs, Epsie Underwood, Mariah Caldwell, and
Minnie Lee White. Because of the action of the Choctaw Council
I he Beals and Mario ws are enrolled; because of the admission of the
Crawfords by the commission in 1896, which was not appealed to the
United States court, they are enrolled; and because a council of
drunken Indians failed to pass the bills reccwnmended by the citizen-
t^hip committee of the Choctaw Council for the admission of the
Marrs, Underwoods, and Whites they have been excluded. It is for
Congress to say whether such unjust and inequitable discrimination
shall be permitted to remain uncorrected. To refuse to correct such
an outrage would be to refuse to perform a plain duty.
Those entitled to enrollment are :
Admitted by United States court : George Lee White. Minnie Lee
White, Claud Jackson White, Mirtle Estelia White, George Thomas
White, Jasper Marlow, Eobert Crawford Marlow, Haley Marguerite
Marlow, Earnest Jackson Marlow, Roy Marlow, Epsia Underwood,
William Underwood, John Underwood, Margarette Underwood,
Elizabeth Underwood, Angeline Underwood, Nellie Underwood,
Leopold Underwood. Mena Underwood, Jane Marrs, Margaret
Marrs, Ellen Alderson, Rebecca Smith, Mary Pritchard, Julia Ham-
ilton, Samuel Marrs, Thomas Marrs, John Marrs, Clara Belle Marrs,
William K. Marrs, James Marrs, Rachel Marrs, Richard M. Aider-
son, Julia M. Alderson, Barley H. Alderson, Reuben Harrison, Jane
Smith, Flora Pritchard, John Pritchard, Dennie Pritchard, Jane
Pritchard, Delia May Hamilton, Bertha Marrs.
Newborn children for whose enrollment application was made to
the commission within the tinieprescribed by law : Henry Lee White,
John Ransom "^^Tiite, Jessica White, George May Marrs. Jerry Aider-
son, Archie L. Marrs. Clarence J. Marrs, Paul Eddison Hodges,
jBecca Pritchard, Icy Pritchard, Thadeus Hamilton. Tandy Ham-
ilton, Reuben H. Hamilton, Jane Marrs.
(Fifty -seven in all.) \
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee-
United States of America.
Indian Territory, Central District, sh:
In the United States Court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a term
thereof b^stin and held at South McAl ester, in the Indian Territory, on the
24th day of August A. D. 1897.
Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Epsia Underwood et al. v, Choctaw Nation. No. 32.
JUDGMENT.
On this the 24th day of August, 1897, the same being one of the regular
Judicial days of the April, 1807, term of court, this cause came on to be heard,
whereupon the plaintiffs and defendant announced ready for trial, and the court
Digitized by V^OOQIC
392 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
haying heard the testimony and argument of counsel and being well and suf-
ficiently advised in the premises, doth find that the plaintiffs, Epsia Under-
wood, WiUiam Underwood, John Underwood, Margarette Underwood, Elizabeth
Onderwood, Angeline Underwood, Nellie Underwood. Leopold Underwood, and
Mena Underwood, are descendants of a member of the Choctaw Nation by blood
and are entitled to be placed upon the roll as members by blood of the Choctaw
Nation.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiffs,
Epsia Underwood, William T^uderwood. John T'nderwood. Margarette Under-
wood, Elizabeth Underwood, Angeline Underwood. Nellie Underwood, Leopold
Underwood, and Mena Underwood, have and recover of and from the Choctaw
Nation, and tliat they and each of them be granted all the rights, privileges,
immunities and benefits as enjoyed by members by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, and that the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes place the names
of said plaintiffs upon the roll of the Choctaw Nation as members thereof by
blood and that the Choctaw Nation recognize the rights of these plaintiffs to
Uieir full extent, and that the clerk of this court furnish the said Commissiou
to the Five Civilized Tribes with a certified copy of this judgment, and that the
plaintiffs have and recover of the defendant all their costs herein expended,
for all of which let execution issue.
The within is a true copy from the record of an order made by said conrt
on the 24th day of August, A. D. 1897.
[SEAL.] (Signed) E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
(Indorsed : No. 427. No. 32. Epsia Underwood et nl. versus Choctaw Nation.
Ck)py of order of court. Filed September 1, 1897. N. M. Jackoway, secretary.)
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pw-
tainlng to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasnw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Beminole Tribes of Indians and the distribution of the lands Of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a copy of
an order of the United States court for central district, Indian Territory, en-
tered on August 24, 1897. by Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge, in the matter
^ Epsia Underwood et al. v. Choctaw Nation, No. 32.
J. Geo. Wwght,
Commissioner to the Fire Civilised Tribe*.
By W, H. Angell,
CJcrJ: iti Charge of Choctaw Records,
Muskogee, Okla.. October SI, 1910,
United States of America.
Indian Territory, Central District, ss^
In the United States Court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a twm
thereof begun and held at South McAlester. in the Indian Territory, on the
13tli day of July, A. D. 1897.
Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of snid court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
George Lee White et al. r. Choctaw Nation. No. 64.
JUDGMENT.
On this 13th day of July, 1897, the same being one of the days of the April,
1897, term of this court, this cause came on to be heard and both plaintiffs and
defendant api>ear and announce ready for trial.
And it appearing to the court that a stipulation made and entered into by
and l)etween i)lalntiffs and defendant on the 3d day of July, 1897, has been
filed in this cause, plaintiffs and defendant in open court agree that judgment
may be rendered in this cause according to the terms of said stipulation; and
It appearing to the court that by the terms of said stipulation It has been pro-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
PIVB CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 898
vided that George Lee White and his four minor children, to wit, Minnie Ijee
White, Claud Jaclcson White, Mirtel Estella White, and George Thomas White,
and Jasper Marlow, and his four minor children, to wit, Robert Crawford Mar-
low, Haley Margaret Marlow, Earnest Jackson Marlow, and Roy Marlow may
be admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation and may have judgment ad-
mitting them to citizenship in this cause ; and that the remaining applicants In
this cause, to wit, Eliza Jane FoM, Ivy Ford, Bully Ford. Arthur Ford. Lilly
May Ford, Jack White, Nora White, Leila White, Oscar White, Jasper Moses
White, James Thomas White, Mahala Irene White, Marguerite Epsie Hale,
Bulah Glover, Olive Glover, Floyd Hale, and any and all others who have
applied for citizenship herein and who have not been heretofore named, shall
be denied citizenship and that Judgment may be rendered herein against them.
Now, therefore, the court being well and fully advised in the premises
doth order, adjudge, and decree that the said George Lee White, Minnie Lee
White, Claud Jackson White, MIrtle Estella White, and (George Thomas White,
Jasper Marlow, Robert Crawford Marlow, Haley Marguerite Marlow, Earnest
Jackson Marlow. and Roy Marlow be, and the aiid parties are hereby, admitted
to full citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, with all the rights and privileges
pertaining to citizens by blood of the said Choctaw Nation.
It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the remaining claimants In
this action, Eliza Jane Ford. Ivy Ford, Bully Ford, Arthur Ford, Lilly May
Ford, Jack White, Nora White, I^lla White, Oscar White, Jasijer Moses White,
James Thomas White, Mahala Irene White. Marguerite Epsie Hale, Bulah
Glover, Olive Glover, and Floyd Hale, and any other applicants in this cause
tkot heretofore named be, and the said parties are hereby, denied citizenship in
said Choctaw Nation and are hereby barred of any claim to sjiid citizenship in
said Choctaw Nation.
It It further ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs have and recover of
defendant all their cost in this action laid and expended.
It is further adjudged and decreed that the clerk of this court forward to
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes a certified copy of the judgment
in this cause, and that said commission place the names of the parties herein
admitted on the rolls prepared or to be prepared by it and exclude from said
roll the names of the parties herein denied.
Unitkd States of America.
Indian Territory, Central District, ss:
I, R. J. Fannin, clerk of the district court of the United States for the central
district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
copy of an order made by this court on the 13th day of July, 1897. as appears
from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof. I have hereunto set my hand. .Mt mv office in South
McAlester in said district, this 20th day of October. A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] (Signed) E. J. Fannin, Clerk,
By , Deputy.
(Indorsed: No. 64. George Lee White et al. versus Choctaw Nation. Copy
of order of court. Signed, E. J. Fannin, clerk, by , deputy.)
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members, of the Choctaw, Chlckanaw. Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a copy
of order of court rendered by Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of United
States court for the central district, Indian Territory, on July 13, 1897, in the
matter of George I.-ee White et al. r. Choctaw Nation, No. 64.
J. Geo. Weight,
Commissioner to the Fire Cirilized Tribes,
By W. H. Ancell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctair Records.
MuBKooEB, Okla., October 91, 1910.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
394 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
United States of Amebic a,
Indian Territory, Central District, 88:
In the I'nitetl States Court in the Indian Territory, centrjU district, at a term
thereof begun and held at South McAlester in the Indian Territory, on the
19th day of Januaiy. A. D. 1898.
Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Jane Marrs iv Choctaw Nation. No. 88. Judgment.
On this 19th day of January, A. D. 1898, came the claimants by their attor-
ney and file a motion to re-form the Judgment heretofore entered In this cause
and for a nunc pro tunc entry herein ; and the court being well and sufficiently
advised in the premises, doth find that by a clerical error, the name of Tandy
Hamilton was erroneously entered in said judgment, and that he was not
party to this suit, and that the court had no jurisdiction of his person.
Therefore it is ordered by the court that said judgment heretofore entered be
re-formed by striking out the name of Tandy Hamilton, which occurs therein
by clerical en-or. and that said judgment be entered on for the 25th day of
August, 1897, and that it read as follows, to wit:
Jane Marrs et al. r. Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
This cause came on to be heard on this the 25th day of August, A. D. 1897,
in open court, whereupon both plaintiffs and defendant announced ready for
trial, and the court having heard the evidence In the case and argument of
counsel, and the same being submitted to the court for judgment herein, the
court finds that the plaintiffs, Jane Marrs, a female 61 years old; Margaret
Marrs. Ellen Alderson, Rebecca Smith. Mary Pritchard, Julia Hamilton,
Samuel Marrs. Thomas Marrs, and John Marrs are all citizens and members
of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe by blood, and as such are entitled to all the
rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits of citizens and members by blood
of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians; that Clara Belle Marrs, William
K. Marrs, James Marrs, and Rachel Marrs. children of Margaret Marrs, one
of the above-nanifKl plaintiffs: that Richard M. Alderson, Julia M. Alderson,
and Barley H. Alderson. children of Ellen Alderson, one of the above-named
plaintiffs; that Reubln Harrison and Jane Smith, children of Rebecca Smith,
one of the above-named plaintiffs; that Flora Pritchard, John Pritchard, Dennle
Pritchard. and Jan^ Pritchard, children of Mary Pritchard, one of the above-
named plaintiffs: that Delia May Hamilton, child of Julia Hamilton, one of
the above-named plaintiffs; that Bertha Marrs, child of Samuel Marrs, one
of the aboA'e-named plaintiffs, are all members and citizens of the Choctaw
Nation and Tribe of Indians by blood, and as such are entitled to all the
rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits of citizens and members by blood
of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians and Nation. It Is therefore ordered, adjudged,
and decreed that the above-named plaintiffs, all and each of them, be admitted
to and granted all the rights, privileges. Immunities, ^nd benefits of citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation ; that each of their names be placed upon the
legal citizenship roll of the Choctaw Nation by blood, by the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes, and that the clerk transmit to said commission
certified copy of judgment In this case, and order that said commission place
the names of the above-named plaintiffs upon the rolls as herein commanded,
and that the plaintiffs have and recover of and from the defendant all their
costs herein laid out and exi>ended ; for all of which let execution issue.
United States of America,
Indian Territory^ Distriet, 88:
I, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the district court of the United States for the
district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a
true copy of an order made by said court on the 19th day of January, 1898,
as appears from the records of said court now on file In my ofl9ce.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, at my ofllce In South
McAlester, In siild district, this 19th day of March. A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.I E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
By I. M. Dodge, Deputy.
This Is to certify that I am the oflacer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 395
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the dis[)08ition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a judgment dated August 25, 1S97, now on file in this office, in the
matter of the enrollment of Jane Marrs et al. as members of the Choctaw
Nation. /
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of ChoctOic Records.
DuRANT, IND. T., August 15, 1899.
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that I. D. B. Shaffer, a minister of the gospel, do hereby
certify that on July 31, 1899, I did duly and according to the requirement of the
Choctaw law, solemnize and publish the bonds of holy matrimony between
Mr. R. T. Alderson and Miss Ellen Marrs.
Witness my hand this 15th day of August, 1899.
D. E. Shaffer.
My credentials are recorded In third Judicial district, contract book A,
page 141.
PERMIT.
County of Blue,
Choctaw Nation, Ind. T.
To all whom these presents shrill come, greeting:
Nnow ye, that I, R. C. Freeney, judge of the county and probate court of
said county, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me vested by the
laws of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby grant unto John Campbell, a citizen of
the United States, a permit to reside In the Choctaw Nation as a renter in the
employ of R. T. Alderson.
This permit shall expire December 31, 1900.
Given under my hand and seal of the county this 5th day of February, 1900.
[SE-vL.] R. C. Freeney,
County and Probate Judge of
said County, Choctaw Nation.
Attest: C. W. James,
County Clerk.
feemff.
CoLNTY OF Blue,
Choctaw Nation, Ind. T.
To all *whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye, that I, R. C. Freeney, Judge of the county and probate court of
said county, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me vested by the
laws of the Choctaw Nation, do her^y grant unto Jim Bradley, a citizen of
the United States, a permit to reside In the Choctaw Nation as a renter in the
employ of R. T. Alderson.
This permit shall expire December 31, 1900.
Given under my hand and seal of the county this 5th day of February, 1900.
[SEAL.] R. C. Freeney,
County and Probate Judge of
said County, Choctaw Nation.
Attest:
C. W. James,
County Clerk.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
896 FIVE CIVILIZED TEUBES IN OKLAHOMA.
PEBMIT.
County of Blce,
Choctaw Nation, Ind. T.
To all whom these presents shall come, greeting:
Know ye, that I, R. C. BYeeney, judge of the county and probate court of
said county, Choctaw Nation, by virtue of the authority in me Aested by the
laws of the Choctaw Nation, do hereby grant unto Neal Wallace, a citizen of
the United States, a \yeTm\t to reside in the Choctaw Nation as a renter in the
employ of R. T. Alderson.
• This permit shall expire December 31. 1900.
Given under my hand and seal of the county this 5th day of February. 1900.
[SEAL.] R. C. Fbeeney.
County and Probate Judge of
said County, Choctaw Nation.
Attest: , C. W. James.
County Clerk.
Depabtment or the Interiob.
COMMISSTOIY TO THE FiVE CIVILIZED TbIBES.
Muskogee, Ind. T^ May 7. 190^.
RODEBT T. AlDEBSON,
AVison, Ind. T,
Dear Sib: Inclosed herewith you will find a copy of the order of the Com-
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes, dated May 7, 1904, dismissing your applica-
tion for enrollment as a citizen by intermarriage jf the Choctaw Nation.
Respectfully,
T. B. Needles.
Commissioner in Charge.
Z. T. Bottoms et al., Choctaw.
Dawes Commission, No. 8. United States court, No. 115. Citizen-
ship court. No. 75-T. Commission, No. 5024.
September 8, 1896. Petition filed with Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes, alleging that claimants were descendants of Billy
Bottoms, alias Jsockatuboee, a half-breed Choctaw, and Ann Meshu-
lahtubbee, a full-blood Choctaw; that certain of claimants were
residing in the nations and enjoying privileges of citizens. Attached
to the petition were 87 affidavits in support thereof.
Note. — In the Court of Claims record of Mississippi Choctaw
Indians claiming land under the treatv of 1830 the following names
appear upon pages indicated: Nocatu\)bee, pages 140-149; Nockah*-
tubbee, pages 592, 376, and 648; Nocentubbee, page 196; Masholetub-
bee, page 559 ; and in the records of the Atoka Revisory Board, on
page 306, appears the name " Nockehtubbee."
October 9, 1896. Answer of Choctaw Nation filed, alleging that
" there is no evidence that this claim has ever been disputed by the
Choctaw Nation.''
December 1, 1896. The word " Denied '' written across back of
petition.
February 22, 1897. Appeal perfected in United States court,
southern district, Indian Territory, for trial de novo; answer of
Choctaw Nation stricken from files because filed too late; evidence
taken before master; no appearance on part of nation; it was shown
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 397
by the testimony that the petitioners were residents of the nation,
enjoying the rights of citizenship; that Z. T. Bottoms had been
sued in the Chickasaw court as a citizen; that the following writ
of possession had been issued by the district judge of the Chickasaw
Nation :
Indian Tebbitoby,
Chickasaw Nation, Pontotoc County.
To the sheriff or any constable of Pontotoc County, ffi'ceting:
You are hereby icommnnded by his honor, R. B. Willis, district Judge of the
Chickasaw Nation, to proceed and attach one Z. T. Bottoms, a citizen and resi-
dent of Pontotoc County, Chickasaw Nation, a house and lot of posts, put up
and owned by W. T. Shannon, a citizen of said county and nation, in the year
1890. You are hereby commanded to hold this improvement in your possession
until the rights of proper. y can be tried at the May term of court, 1897, or
some judicial proceedings made of the same. Fall not but make your return of
this to said court.
A. T. McKlNNEY,
Clerk of District Court , Chickasaw Nation,
June 23, 1897. Master's report filed. The master found as
follows :
The testimony in this case shows that the applicants, except those tha*^ were
intermarried, were descendants of William and Ann Bottoms. The evidence
in the case further shows that William and Ann Bottoms were Choctaw
Indians.
The master further found that 34 of the applicants were nonresi-
dents or intermarried not in accordance with the laws of the naticMi,
and recommended that they be not enrolled. The report concluded
as follows:
I recommend that the lineal descendants of William and Ann Bottoms as
contained In this record, who reside In the Indian Territory, be admitted as
menibers of the Choctaw Tribe.
November 15, 1897. Judgment of United States court rendered,
admitting the following-named persons as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation :
William Fletcher Bottoms, William Henry Bottoms, Rosa Bell
Bottoms, William Elmer Bottoms, Rebecca Morrow. William
Fletcher Morrow, Walter Morrow, Letitia Morrow, Jewell Morrow,
Beulah Morrow, Minnie Morrow, Winnie Morrow, William Ira Bot-
toms, Claudie McClellan Bottoms, Bettie Jane Bottoms, Pearl Put-
nam, Hattie Jane Putnam, Frankie Lee Putnam, Pauline E. Bennett,
Zachariah Thomas Bottoms, William Luther Bottoms, Francis Caro-
line Bottoms, James Zachariah Bottoms, Joseph Smith Bottoms,
Bertha May Bottoms, September Bottoms, Ester E. Bottoms, William
Alexander Bottoms, Allia A. Bottoms, Bertha Annie Bottoms,
Thomas Atwood, Emmett Montgomery, Thomas W. Segroves, Eliza-
beth Segroves, Charles Webster Segroves, George Franklin Segroves,
Doc Thomas Segroves, William Cleveland Segroves, Zachariah
Segroves, Para lee Segroves, James B. Segroves, Samuel Montgomery
Segroves, Eldredge Kirkland, Jessie Ester Kirkland, Mary Pruda
Kirkland, William Walter Kirkland, Sallie Grace Kirkland, Jost^ph
Kirkland, Beulah Kirkland, William Kirkland, Monte Kirkland, Lee
Kirkland, Laura Inez Kirkland, Roxie Kirkland, Sallie Kirkland,
IJlsley Mainnard, Marcus L. Ivey, James L. Ivey, William J. Ivev,
Thomas F. Ivey, Nora E. Ivey, Lewis A. Ivey, Nancy Ann Steppicfe,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
398 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Charles Franklin Steppick, Thomas Joseph Steppick, Oeorge Wash-
ington Steppick, William Oscar Steppick, Bessie L. Steppick, John
H. Gregory, Thomas L. Ivey, Elisha W. Ivey, Bertie L. Ivey, Katie
Crawford, Nora Lee Crawford.
Certified copy of judgment hereto attached, marked ''Exhibit A."
Janiiarj^ 21, 1898. Motion for new trial filed by nation. Record
does not disclose proceedings on motion, but case was appealed by
nation to United States Supreme Court.
March 3, 1899. Judgment corrected, on motion of claimants, by
striking out the names of Bertha Ann Bottoms, Sallie Gracie Kirk-
land, and James L. Ivey.
May 15, 1899. Mandate of United States Supreme Court affirming
judgment of United States district court.
December 17, 1902. Decree of Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship
court vacating judgment of United States district court in " test case.
March 10, 1903. Record filed in citizenship court for trial de
novo. In the citizenship court 43 witnesses were examined by both
attorneys for claimants and for nations. (List of witnesses and
synopsis of testimony hereto attached.) Seventeen of the 43 wit-
nesses gave positive testimony that claimants were descendants of
Choctaw Indians, said testimony being based upon personal knowl-
edge of the Indian ancestors."^ Twenty-five of the 43 witnesses
confined their testimony to family connections, relati6nship, and
descent from Indian ancestors. Although 42 witnesses testified
in this case before the citizenship court U> material facts, such as
blood, descent, residence or tribal affiliation, and recognition of
claimants, the court saw fit to refer to the testimony of only 6.
Of the six witnesses to which reference is made, one is shown to be
mentally unsound, and two others based their testimony on his state-
ments to thenL The statements of the court as to what the others
testified to are incorrect, and in one instance the exact opposite of
what the witness stated.
Z. T. BOTTOMS.
List of names of claimants not in court judgment but who applied
to the commission prior to December 1, 1905: Samuel BcAtoms,
Thomas B. Bottoms, Lonnie Moore, Gracie Bottoms, Louie Segroves,
Bertha May Segroves, Ethel Lillian Segroves.
Witnesses before Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in Bottoms
case :
Henry DoUerhite, 46 years old, testified as to acquaintance with
and death of Henry and Elsie Perkins.
J. A. Sexton, aged 63, knew Billy Bottoms in Cherokee Countv,
Tex., in 1859 ; also Zack and Smith Bottoms. Also knew the Hills
ihere; that he could not understand the language talked by Billy
Bottoms; that Billy's daughter told him her father was one-quarter
Cherokee, one-quarter white, and one-half Choctaw; that when he
talked with Billy Bottoms his daughter interpreted for him; that
Billy Bottoms lived with his daughter, and that his wife was dead;
that*^ Billy Bottoms was an old man and crippled; that he was about
80 vears old ; that witness is not related to Bottoms and hasf no claim
himself; that Z. T. Bottoms is a son of Smith Bottoms.
On crass-examination he stated Billy Bottoms died about the year
1860 or 1861 ; that he understood Billy Bottoms came from Alabama
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 399
to Texas; that he did not know whether Billy Bottoms talked Chero-
kee or Choctaw ; that he never heard Billy Bottoms say anything that
he could understand; that Billy Bottoms's grandchildren were not
permitted to attend school in Texas because they were Indians.
Redirect : They claimed to be Choctaws. In response to the couii;
f Judge A.) : They looked like Indians. I could not understand their
language. I have heard Choctaws talk, but do not know the differ-
ence. Billy Bottoms's daughter said the language was Choctaw.
Joe Steppick, 64 years old, testified as to his knowledge of the
Hills.
Z. T. Bottoms, 45 years old; lived in the Chickasaw Nation 19
years ; came from Texas : was bom in Cherokee County, Tex. ; father
was Smith A. Bottoms ; he was part Choctaw Indian ; that Zack and
Eldredge Bottoms were his uncles; last time he saw Zach was in
the Territory 19 vears ago; that he died at White Bead in 1896;
mother died in 'fexas; did not know grandparents; do not know
degree of Choctaw blood.
No cross-examination.
James Segroves, 33 years of age: testified that the Hills were de-
scendants of Zack Bottoms; that Zack Bottoms was his grandfather;
was born in Cherokee County, Tex.
Cross-examination : I have lived in the Indian Territory 14 years.
T. J. Blagg, 45 years of age; lived in Choctaw and Chickasaw Na-
tions since 1885; came from Texas; knew the Hills to be descendants
of the Bottoms; that the Hills held land in the nations, and were rec-
ognized as citizens.
A. A. Palmer, 44 years old; married into the Hill family; held
farm as Indians.
John Logan, 74 years old; lived in Choctaw Nation 30 years; no
relation to Hills or Bottoms; knew William Bottoms in Alabama;
Prudence Bottoms, daughter of William Bottoms, made his father's
house her home; knew her sister Piety; Piety married Ben Hill; old
Billy Bottoms was known as a Choctaw Indian; he was a cripple;
he had the appearance of a quarter-breed Indian; he lived near
Hacketsburg; Tom Bottoms was Billy Bottoms's oldest son; Ben
HUl and Kirkland, who married Billy Bottoms's youngest daughter,
moved to Cherokee County, Tex.; don't know where Billy Bottoms
went, but he left Alabama.
Cross-examination: Was born in Franklin County, Ala., in 1830;
left Alabama in the fall of 1852 ; claimants came betore he did ; does
not know positively that Billy Bottoms's wife was descended from
Masholatubbee.
Redirect examination : Prudy Bottoms told him her mother's name
was Ann Masholatubbee, and Billy Bottoms talked the Indian lan-
guage.
Joe Freeman, colored, 81 years old, Choctaw freedman ; lived at
Doaksville when freed; knew Billv Bottoms at Doaksville; he was
crippled in his legs; got drunk with his master, and run horse races;
Billy Bottoms talked Choctaw ; \7itness understands some Choctaw,
but can not talk it; Billy Bottoms was at Doaksville before the war;
witness counts in Ch(x»taw; knows Choctaw names of animals; does
not know what became of Bottoms; " he roamed."
Cross-examination: Bottoms would go and come; was away once
two vears from first to last; last time seen about five years — about ten
^ Digitized by ^OOgie
400 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA*
or fifteen years before the war ; never saw his family ; thinks he had
one; never heard names of children and does not know where they
were; understands Bottoms came from Mississippi; does not know
where he went when he left ; heard him say he was a Choctaw Indian
and came from Mississippi; does not know his age; might have
been 40.
Redirect examination: States he does not undertake to fix Bot-
tom's age; that he did not know how old he was.
G. J. Humphrey, 3G years old; states that his mother was Mary
Hill, a sister of Louis Hill ; his mother told him that her mother was
a three-quarter-blood Choctaw.
Cross-examination: Have lived in this county 13 years; family
through which he claims came from Mississippi; mother's grand-
father was Billy Bottoms ; mother said Billy Bottoms and son Zack
came to Territory with Indians; that they came from old Choctaw
countrv.
H. f. Murrv (for nation), 80 years old, an intermarried citis^n;
knew Louis Hfill in 1877; Hill claimed to be a Chickasaw; went be-
fore Chickasaw committee and was rejected; thereafter Louis's
father came into the Territory and said Louis was not Chickasaw but
Choctaw.
Daniel Underwood, about 100 years old; lived in Choctaw Nation
about 98 years; lived in Choctaw Nation in Mississippi: knew Chief
Musholatubbee, a Choctaw ; knew Musholatubbe's daugnter, Barret ;
knew Ann Musholatubbee; does not know what relation she was to
Chief Musholatubbee; knew Billy Bottoms; he, had no wife when
known by witness. Billy Bottoms was a Choctaw, nearly full blood ;
he came to this country and lived somewhere on Blue ; Billy Bottoms
and Ann Musholatubbee lived together in old nation ; Billy Bottoms
was a cripple.
Catherine Franklin, freedwoman, came from Pontotoc County,
Miss., with first Indians coming; was 16 years old then; knew Billy
Bottoms. He was a Choctaw and had two daughters, Piety and
Prudie; Billy Bottoms came to nation near Doaksville; thinks Billy
Bottoms's wife died in old nation ; her name was Ann Musholatubbee ;
she was a Choctaw ; Billy Bottoms was crippled ; talked Choctaw.
Marcus L. Ivey testified as to the Hills ; horns Hill was his uncle.
Minerva Anderson, freedwoman, 79 years old, bom in Mississippi ;
was a large girl when she left Mississippi ; came to Doaksville, Ind.
T.; knew BiUy Bottoms at Doaksville, also his son Zack; some called
him Nocatubbee; he was a Choctaw; he could not speak plain Eng-
lish; he was lame; his Indian name was Nocatubbee; the Indians
called him by that name ; he was about Doaksville two or three years ;
don't know what became of him; he left because he was diarged with
killing a doctor; he raced horses and drank; knew him between the
years 1840 and 1844 ; he was middle aged.
Ophelia Kirkland testified as to her marria^ to a Kirkland; lived
in Choctaw Nation 20 years ; married at Paoli m 1881.
W. L. Bottoms testified that he is son of Z. T. Bottoms; lived in
Choctaw Nation 18 ^ears.
W. A. Bottoms lived in nation 32 years; father was Alexander
Bottoms; married in nation in 1898; paid $50 license.
Philip Stephenson, 75 years old, freedman, bom in Mississippi;
4 years old when he left there; knew Billy Bottoms at Pitchlyn's,
Digitized by V^OOQl€
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 401
here on Blue ; knew him for a period of 12 months about 10 years be-
fore the war.
Levina King, 72 years; Choctaw by blood; bom at Shawneetown,
Choctaw Nation; knew Bottoms around Doaksville, also his son
Zack; he was Choctaw, talked Choctaw language; called Enocatub-
bee; got into trouble and died; killed a doctor; knew the man they
kiUea; brought him to my house; he was alive and said Billy Bottoms
and Pitchlyn butchered him; Billy Bottoms was lame; his wife died
in Mississippi; knew him when I was about 9 years old, near Fort
Towson.
Elizabeth Seagroves, 55 ;^^ears old, daughter of Zack Bottoms;
relates family history ; lived in nations 22 years ; knew Billy Bottoms;
he died in Cherokee County, Tex., before I was grown ; Zack Bottoms
died at Paoli, Chickasaw Nation ; Billy Bottoms was dark, a Choc-
taw: could hardly talk English; Billy Bottoms died before the war:
don't remember whether it was in 1859 or not
Mrs. Z. T. Bottoms testified as to marriage and kinfolk of her
husband; been living in Territory 19 years; states names of her chil-
dren.
Rebecca Morrow ; daughter of W. F. Bottoms and granddaughter
of Nelson Bottoms; was born at Cairo, 111.; 46 years old.
Samuel M. Seagroves, son of Mrs. Seagroves.
Ezekiel Putnam, husband of Pearl Bottoms.
Robert Hope; have known Z. T. Bottoms for 40 years; knew his
father. Smith Bottoms, in Texas; he was a dark-complected man,
and did not claim to be a white man. I am a cousin of Tom Bot-
toms's wife.
M. F. Montgomery, 32 years old, daughter of Lucinda Bottoms.
Thomas L. Ivey : mother was a Hill ; relates family history of the
Hills.
^ Mrs. L. Bottoms, wife of Newton Wesley Bottoms, a son of Wil-
liam Fletcher Bottoms, and grandson of Nelson Bottoms.
W. W. Ivey, brother of Thomas L. Ivey.
William Fletcher Bottoms, 69 years old, son of Nelson Bottoms;
Nelson Bottoms died in 1877 in Arkansas; I married Eliza J. Boyd
in Hardenville, 111.. My father married Sallie Ann Arnold and
moved from Alabama to Illinois; left Alabama in 1840 or 1841;
remember seeing Billy Bottoms once in Alabama when I was a
child; he had been away a long time; he did not stay long; father
and I served in the Union Army ; Billy Bottoms went to the Terri-
tory and Texas when he left Alabama; I know this from letters I
have seen; some letters said he was in Territory and some in Texas;
letters received about 1853 or 1854; I have never moved to Territory;
I live in Jack County, Tex; I batched there two years; my wife
would not come; letters received from Billy Bottoms in Territory
came before letters from Texas.
Marcus L. Ivey, brother of two other Ivey boys just testified.
Robert C. Florence, 55 years: citizen by marriage; knew Smith
Bottoms; knew Zack Bottoms; lived neighbor to Zack in Cherokee
County, Tex. ; Zack Bottoms appeared to he one-half Choctaw ; Smith
Bottoms showed Indian, but not as much as Zack; I have been living
in Territory since 1872; I knew Tom Bottoms, son of Smith Bot-
toms; Bottoms have been holding lands here as citizens for 12 or
15 years ; Tom Bottoms sued in Indian courts ; Za^.^. jg|(^t^gpj5(5rM^
69282—13 ^28
402 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
buried on my place several years ago; Zack Bottoms had all the
general features of an Indian ; if I Knew nothing of him, but met
him in the road, would say he was an Indian.
William Kirkland; have lived in the Chickasaw Nation 24 years;
am a brother of Charles Kirkland. Testified as to marriage of his
sister.
Nancy Ann Steppick, age 46 years, granddaughter of Piety Hill;
lived in Territory 29 years; married a John Gregory in Texas;
married Steppick in Territory under Choctaw laws by Choctaw
judge; knew Zack Bottoms; he appeared to be an Indian; Zack
Bottoms talked Choctaw; I had permits issued six or seven years;
6ent children to schools in Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations-
Joseph Kirkland, son of William Kirkland: lived in Territory
24 years; knew Zack Bottoms; he appeared to be an Indian.
William Henry Bottoms, son of W. F. Bottoms, grandson of
Nelson Bottoms : held a place eight or nine years before admitted by
court.
William W. Hill, 70 years old, lives in Cooke County, Tex. ; lived
in Cherokee County, Tex., 14 years; knew Billy Bottoms, Zack
Bottoms, Smith Bottoms, and Eldred^ Bottoms; lived within 4
miles of Billy Bottoms; he lived with his children; his wife was not
living; knew his daughters Prudence and Piety; Billy Bottoms was
old, a cripple, and could not talk good* English ; he looked to be an
Indian of mixed blood; appeared to be three-quarters Indian; he
talked Indian language. I have no interest in this case. Billy Hill
killed my brother; they were not related.
Seth Bottoms, 80 years old; lived in Brinn, Ala.; father's name
William Bottoms; mother was Ann Witt; father's mother married
in Jefferson County, Tenn. I am oldest child, born in 1824; I was
bom in Monroe County, Miss. My understanding is my father was
bom in Virginia; father had a family Bible. I don't know what
became of it; never heard father claim to be a Choctaw; he never
had any other name; it seems to me I have heard he had Choctaw
Wood. I never heard father say where he came from ; I never heard
father sav he married in Tennessee. Daniel Witt said he was my
Another's brother ; he might have been a half brother.
Family Bible, filed m the record as evidence, shows: Thomas,
born April 13, 1807; Pietv, born Januarv 16, 1809; Zack, bom
September 26, 1812.
There are other names following those, but the writing is illegible,
Riley S. Bottoms, 63 years of age. Am postmaster at Knowles,
Ala.; am a grandson of William Bottoms; have se«i grandfathw:
■never heard nim claim to be a Choctaw; grandmother died in Monroe
C/Ounty, Miss. : about all I now about grandfather and grandmother
I learned from Uncle Setti.
Nan^ Rudolph, 58 years old, lives at Knowles, Ala.; sister of
Riley Bottoms. " I reckon I have heard my mother say grand-
mother's name was Annie Witt."
Wiley Wooten, 80 years old, lives in Franklin County, Ala. ; lived
there all my life except two years in Mississippi ; knew a Mr. Bottoms
in Marion County, Ala.; his Indian name was Nockatubbee; was
called by both names. I knew three of his children, Thomas. Seth,
and Eagle; his first name was William. When Bottoms left Ala-
bama his son Zack went with him ; don't kn^y^^j^^^J^^^Wg^ froni
FIVE CIVIUZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 408
to Marion County ; I was 7 or 8 years old ; Seth Bottoms and I are
about the same age. Bottoms looks somewhat like an Indian.
Mrs. M. E. Hays, 51 years of age, lived in Brinn, Ala. My father
is Seth Bottoms. He died the 25th of this month ; he lived with me
for three years. For the last year his mind has been mighty feeble ;
some days he would have a good mind and some days he would not.
I do not believe he could make an accurate statement.
Lewis Hill et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commi^ion, No. 61. United States court, No. 54. Citizen-
ship court, No. T-75. Citizenship court. No. T~132.
Consolidated by citizenship court with Z. T. Bottoms\s case. Same
record.
September 9, 1896. Application filed with Dawes Commission for
the enrollment of Louis Hill and nine others as Choctaws by blood.
The petition stated that the ap{>licants were descendants of Allen
Moshulottubby, a full-blood Choctaw ; that the applicants had at one
time been admitted as citizens bv the Choctaw Council, but that in
the following year the action ol the council was reconsidered and
applicants refused citizenship.
The petition then makes reference to the record of the appeal from
the action of the council, which had been forwarded to Washington,
and by the department referred to the conmiission.
Attached to the petition is an affidavit of John M. Hodges, who
states that in 1887 he was the secretary of the committee on citizen-
ship of the Choctaw National Council, and that the committee recom-
mended to the council that Louis Hill and family be admitted.
There is also attached to the petition the papers forwarded to the
Indian Office by the Indian agent in the appeal proceedings from
the action of the council of 1888, said papers consisting of the notice
of appeal and the affidavits considered by the councu. It appears
from the record that no action was taken by the department upon the
appeal, and that these papers had been forwarded to the Dawes Com-
mission by the department for consideration in passing upon the
above application. The report of the Indian agent, Owen, upon the
appeal, which was adverse to the applicants, was not transmitted by
the department to the commission.
This action by the department left Hill's appeal from the council
to be determined by the Dawes Commission.
September 26, 1896. Answer of nation filed.
December 1, 1896. Decision of the commission, in words and
figures as follows, to wit, *•' Denied."
Appealed to United States court, central district. Evidence taken
before master.
January 18, 1898. Judgment of United States court, certified copy
hereto attached, ordering following-named persons enrolled: Louis
Hill, Elizabeth Palmer, Seorgia Allen Palmer, Lee H. Palmer, Earl
Palmer, J. Wesley Hill, Bertie Bell Hill, Joseph Lewis Blogg, W. B.
Hill. G. J. Humphrey, William Walter Humphrey, CuUus Monroe
Humphrey, and Elktt Leroy Humphrey- oig^zed by ^OOgie
404 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
December 17, 1902. Jud^ent of United States court vacated by
decree of citizenship court in " test case/' The case was thereafter
transferred to the citizenship court for trial de novo, and consolidated
with Z. T. Bottoms's case, ^No. T--75, same testimony applying to both
cases, as both claim through same ancestor.
November 28, 1904. Decree of citizenship court holding appli-
cants not citizens.
March 22, 1906. Petition filed with Commissioner to Five Civil-
ized Tribes, alleging enrollment in 1888 by Robert L. Owen, Indian
agent, on appeal from adverse action by tribal council.
Augu.«t (), 1906. Hearing had before commissioner. Evidence
offered to show enrollment by Indian agent in 1888. Commissioner
would not permit witnesses to testify. Papers showing pendency of
appeal from council in 1888 offered in evidence, reading as follows:
To his excellency B. F. Smallwood.
Sir: My being dissatisfied and feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Clioc-
taw tribunal in rejecting my application for citizenship of the Choctaw Nation
on the 15th day of October. 1888, I would therefore asic for an appeal in said
case, and that all papers in said case be forwarded to the United States Indian
agent at Muskogee, Ind. T.
Respectfully submitted October 16, 1888.
Loins (his x mark) Hnx.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this October 16, 1888.
[SEAL.] A. Telle,
National Secretary, Choctaw Nation,
(Indorsed as foUows: Indian Office, 27865. 1888. Inclosure No. 4, 54.)
Thirteen other papers (affidavits) were offered bearing the same
indorsement except as to inclosure number.
The record of the citizenship committee of the Choctaw Council,
1895, now in the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes, contains the following entry on pages 198 and 199 :
No. 4. Case of Lewis Hill for citizenship; he was rejected, and after ex-
amining his petition find that an appeal had been talten to the United States
Indian agent, October 23: he was rejected by the committee October 18, 1888;
therefore was not entertained by this committee.
S. W. Nelson, Chairman.
February 23, 1907. Decision of the commission, holding:
The record herein indicates that a decision was rendered by the United States
Indian agent in the matter of the application of Loais Hill et al. for admission
to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. The record fails to show, however, the
petitioners wera admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by said Indian
agent. I am therefore of the opinion that the action of the Choctaw-Chicka-
saw citizenship court is final, and that the applications should be denied.
February 27, 1907. Record forwarded to department.
March 4, 1907. Action approved by Secretary of the Interior.
G. J. Humphrey et ^l., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission, No. 1364. Eefer to Dawes, No. 61.
8ame record as Louis Hill and consolidated with that case in
Jnited States court, and both cases consolidated with the Z. T. Bot-
loms's case bv tbp citizfiaaaliir^ on»%^^ the claimants in all three cases
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 405
being descendants of the same ancestors, to wit, Billy Bottoms, also
called Nocatubbee, and Ann Meshulatubbee.
Names of applicants in consolidated case admitted by United
States court: Louis Hill, Elizabeth Palmer, Gteorgia Alien Palmer,
Lee H. Palmer, Earl Palmer, J. Wesley Hill, Bertie Bell Hill, Joseph
Lewis Blaffg, W. B. Hill, G. J. Humphrey, William Walter Hum-
phrey, Cullis Monroe Humphrey, and EUett (or Emmett) Leroy
Humphrey.
Names of those not included in the court judgment, but for whom
application was made to the commission withm the time fixed by
law, December 1, 1905: Nettie May Palmer, William L. Hill, Wil-
lie O. Humphrey. Parlee Hill, Roy Hill, and Josie Palmer.
Names of newborn, entitled under act of April 26, 1906: Leon
Augustus Palmer, Floyd Hurst Palmer, Gladys Humphrey, and
Johnson Humphrey.
STATEMENT BY COUNSELv FOR CLAIMANTS.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that the following per-
sons are entitled to enrollment :
Those admitted to citizenship by judgment of United States court:
William Fletcher Bottoms, William Henry Bottoms. Rose Bell Bot-
toms, William Elmer Bottoms, Rebecca Morrow, William Fletcher
Morrow, Walter Morrow, Letitia Morrow, Jewell Morrow, Beulah
Morrow, Minnie Morrow, Winnie Morrow, William Ira Bottoms,
Claudie McClellan Bottoms, Bettie Jane Bottoms, Pearl Putnam,
Hattie Jane Putnam, Frankie Lee Putnam, Pauline E. Bennett,
Zachariah Thomas Bottoms, William Luther Bottoms, Francis Caro-
line Bottoms, James Zachariah Bottoms, Joseph Smith Bottoms,
Bertha May Bottoms, September Bottoms, Ester E. Bottoms, Wil-
liam Alexander Bottoms, Allie A. Bottoms, Bertha Annie Bottoms,
Thomas Atwood, Emmett Montgomery, Thomas W. Segroves, Eliza-
beth Segroves, Charles Webster Segroves, George Franklin Segroves,
Doc Thomas Segroves, William Cleveland Segroves, Zachariah Se-
groves, Paralee Segroves, James B. Segroves, Samuel Montgomery
Segroves, Eldredge Kirkland, Jessie Ester Kirkland, Mary Pruda
Kirklandf, William Walter Kirkland, Sallie Grace Kirkland, Joseph
Kirkland, Beulah Kirkland, William Kirkland, Monte Kirkland,
Lee Kirkland, Laura Izen Kirkland, Roxie Kirkland, Sallie Kirk-
land, Ulsley Mainnard, Marcus L. Ivey, James L. Ivey, William J.
Ivey, Thomas F. Ivey, Xora E. Ivey, Lewis A. Ivey, Nancy Ann
Steppick, Charles Franklin Steppick, Thomas Joseph Steppick,
George Washington Steppick, \\ illiam Oscar Steppick, Bessie L.
Steppick, John H. Gregory, Thomas L. Ivey, Elisha W. Ivey, Bertie
L. Ivey, Katie Crawford, Xora Lee Crawford, Louis Hill, Elizabeth
Palmer, Georgia Allen Palmer, Lee H. Palmer, Earl Palmer, J. Wes-
lev Hill, Bertie Bell Hill, Joseph Lewis Blagg, W. B. Hill, G. J.
riumphreys, William Walter Humphrey, CuUis Monroe Humphrey,
and EUett (or Emmett) Leroy Humphrey.
Xames of those not included in court judgment but for whom
application was made to tiie commission within the time fixed by
law, December 1, 1905: Samuel Bottoms, Thomas B. Bottoms. I^n- .
nie Moore, Gracie Bottoms, Louis Segroves, Bertha May Segroves,
Ethel Lillian Segroves, Xettie May Palmer, William L. Hill, Willie
O. Humphrey, Parlee Hill, Roy Hill, and Josie Palmer.
Digitized by V^OOgie
406 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Names of new born properly filed with the commission within
the time prescribed by law; Eck E. Ivey, Hattie Ann Ivey, TJla
Vircia Ivey, Katie Segroves. Charles Walter Morrow, Willis Ed-
mond Segroves, Euthen Ray Segroves, Thomas Virgil Bottoms, Mary
Naomi Bottoms, Beatrice Bottoms. Mattie Opal Bottoms, William
Henry Riddle, Earnest J. Segroves, Floyd Hurst Humphrey, Gladys
Humphrey, and Leon Augustus Palmer.
Respectfully submitted.
J. E. HUMPHBKY,
and Ballinger ft Lke.
In the I'nited States Court for Southern District of Indian Territory, at
Ardmore.
Z. T. Bottoms et al., plaintiffs, r. Choctaw Nation, defeDdant. Judgment.
This day this cause ooniin)? on to be heard upon the pleadings, exhibits. prooC
master's report, and the exceptions filed thereto by the plaintiff, and it appear-
ing that said report has been filed since June 23. 1897, and no exceptions have
l)een filed thereto by the Choctaw Nation :
It is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court that said report be con-
firmed, in so far aa no exceptions have been filed thereto, aod that the excep-
tions filed to said report by the plaintiffs be. and the same are hereby, nnsh
talned. and the court l)eing sufficiently advised upon the whole case doth
adjudge, order, and decree that William Fletcher Bottoms, William Henry
Bottoms. Roaa Belle Bottoms, William Bimer Bottoms, Rel>ecca Morrow. Wil-
liam Fletcher Morrow, Walter Morrow. Jjetitia Morrow, Jewell Morrow. Bealah
Morrow, Minnie Aforrow, Winnie Morrow. William Ira Bottoms, Claudie Me-
Clellan Bottoms, BetMe Jane Bottoms, Pearl Putnnm, Hattie Jane Putnam,
Frankie I^ee Putnam, Pauline E. Bennett, Zachariah Thomas Bottoms. Wil-
liam TvUther I^ottoms, Francis Caroline Bottoms, James Zachariah Bottoms.
.loseph Smith Bottoms. Bertha May Bottoms. Septemer Bottoms, Ester E. Bot-
toms, William Alexander Bottoms, Allia A. Bottoms, Bertha Annie Bottoms.
Thomas Atwood, Emmett Montgomery, Thomas W. Segroves, Eliasabeth Segroves,
Charles Webster Segroves, George Franklin Segi^oves, Doc Thomas Segroves,
William Cleveland Segroves. Zachariah Segroves. Parnlee Segroves, James B.
Segroves, Samuel Montgomery Segroves. Eldredge Kirkland, Jessie Easier Kirk-
land. Mary Pruda Kirkland. William Walter Ivirkland, Sallie Oracle Kirkland.
Joseph Kirkland, Beulah Kirkland, William Kirkland. Monte Kirkland. T^ee
Kirkland, I^ura Inez Kirkland. Roxie Kirkland. Sallie Kirkland. Tsley Maln-
nard, Marcus T^. Tvey. James L. Ivey. William J. Ivey, Thomas P. Ivey. Xoni
E. Ivej', Ijewis A. Ivey, Nancy Aan Steppick, Charies Franklin Steppick.
Thomas Joseph Steppick, George Washington Steppick, William Oscar Step>
pick. Bessie L. Steppick, John H Gregory, Thomas L. Ivey, Elisba W. Tvey.
Bertie I-. Ivey. Katie Crawford. Nora Lee Crawfbrd. each and all be admltt^l
and enrolled as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians, and that they have
all the rights, privileges. a»d immunities as such.
It is further ordered by the court that a copy of this Judgment be certified
by the clerk of this court to the Commission for the Five Civilized Tribes of
Indians, and said commission is hereby ordered and directed to place each and
all of the above-named parties on the rnil made out by it for the Choctaw
Nation as members thereof.
HOSEA TOWNSKWD. JuUffe.
This Ik !o certify tliat I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a copy
of a judgment of the court filed December 22, 1897, in the matter of the enroll-
ment of Z. T. Bottoms et al. as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Fire Civilized Trihrs.
By W. H. Angell.
Clerk in Charfte of Choctaw Records.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 407
copy of order of court.
United States of America,
Indian Territory, Ventral District^ ss:
In the United States court In the Indian Territory, central district, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on
the 18th day of January. A. D. 1898.
Present : The Hon. William H. H. Clayton, Judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Louis Hill et al. v. Choctaw Nation. No. 54. Judgment.
On this 19th day of January, A. D. 1898, comes the claimants l^rein by
their attorney and file their motion to reform the Judgment heretofore entered
in this cause and for a nunc pro tunc entry herein.
The court being well and sufficiently advised in the premises doth find that
by a clerical error the names of Minnie Humphrey, William Fayette Hill, and
Sarah Jane Blogg were erroneously entered in said Judgment, and that they
were not parties to this suit, and that the court had no Jurisdiction of their
persons.
Therefore it Is ordered by the court tliat said Judgment lieretofore entered
be reformed by striking out the names of the said Minnie Humphrey. Wiliiam
Fayette Hill, and Sarah Jane Blogg, which occur therein by clerical error, and
that said Judgment be entered now for the 26th day of August, 1897, and that
it read as follows, to wit:
JUDGMENT. ,
On this day this cause came on to be heard, whereupon tlie plalntilTs and
defendant announced ready for trial, and the court haAing heard the evidence
and argument of counsel, finds the i.ssues in favor of the plaintiffs herein, and
finds that the plaintiffs. Louis Hill. Elizabeth Palmer, Georgia Allen Palmer,
Lee H. Palmer, Karl Palmer, J. Wesley Hill, Bertie Bell Hill, Joseph I^wis
Blogg, W. B. Hill, G. J. Humphrey, William Walter Humphrey, Cullus Monroe
Humphrey, and Ellett Leroy Humphrey are members by blood of the Choctaw
Nation and that all of said iilaintlffs are entitled to be placed upon the rolls
of the members of the Choctaw Nation as such members, and entitled to all
the rights, privileges, and Immunities and benefits as such members.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said plaintiffs aboTe
named are members by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and that the defendant
Choctaw Nation recognize the said plaintiffs as such members in all respects,
and that the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes pl«ce the names of
these plaintiffs upon the rolls as members of the Choctaw Nation as herein
adjudged, and that the clerk of this court furnish to said commission a cer^
tlfled copy of the Judgment and that the plaintiffs have and recover of and
from the defendant all their costs herein laid out and expended, for all of
which let execution issue.
United States of America,
Indian Territory, District, ss:
I, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the District Court of the I'nlted States for the
Central District of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be
a true copy of an order made by said court on the 18th day of January, 1898,
as appears from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, at mv oflVre in South
McAlester, in said district, this 17th day of March, A. D. 1903.'
[seal.] E. J. Fannin, Cl^k.
By I. M. Dodge, Deputy.
This is to certify that I :mi the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw. Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disiwsltlon of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a Judgment of the court datediJanuary 19, 1898, in the matter of the
enrollment of Louis Hill et al. as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Fire Cirilized Tribes,
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaic Records,
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
408 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Department of the Intebior,
Muskogee, Okla., November 28, 1910,
In the matter of the enrollment of Z. T. Bottoms et al. as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation. (See Ch(K*taw card 5024.)
Proceedings had at Ardniore, f)kla.. November 10, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney. Interior Department.
Appearances: Albert J. I-.ee, attorney for claimants; K P. Hill, attorney for
Choctaw Nation; A. W. Clapp, attorney for Chickasaw Nation.
William Benjamin Hill, being duly sworn and examined as a witness,
testified as follows:
By Mr. Lee :
Q. State your name please? — A. Wililam Benjamin Hill.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Hill? — ^A. Well, sir. I have stayed at Tishomingo
and at Durant; I haven't got no certain home; haven't got no i)ennanent home
right now.
Q. What is your present occupaition? — A. I lecture and preach.
Q. What relation are you to liouis Hill? — A. I am a brother.
Q. What relation are you to Z. T. Bottoms? — A. He is a cousin of mine.
Q. Where were you in 1896, Mr. Hill?— A, In 1896 I was in the penitentiary
at Huntsvllle, Tex.
Q. How long had you been there? — A. Twenty years to a day from the time
I went in there until I got out.
Q. When did you get out? — A. On the 23d day of December, 1907; I got my
pardon here to show that.
Mr. Lee. We would like to have reference made to the pardon of the gov-
ernor to show the date he got out of the pen.
Pardon is here exhibited to Messrs. Pollock. Clapp, and Hill.
We desire the record to show that Mr. Hill presented a pardon signed by
Gov. Campbell, of Texas, dated December 23. 1907. pardoning this applicant
from the term for life in the pen for murder.
Q. Where were you tried? — ^A. Gainesville.
Q. Where were the offenses committed? — A. In Cook County, Tex.
Q. Where were you living at that time? — A. Cook County, Tex.
Q. Did you ever live in the Choctaw Nation? — A. I lived in the Chickasaw
two years; I think it was Chickasaw, the line was so close; I think it was
Chickasaw.
Q. Was that shortly before you were In prison? — A. Yes, sir; 1878 and 1870.
Q. How far did you live from I^juIs Hill? — A. When I first went there he was
living In Cherokee County, Tex., but he moved up there in the winter of 1878
and lived there in 1.S79. from that on. but I went back to Cook County.
Q. He was living in the Choctaw Nation at that time? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What degree of Choctaw blood have you, Mr. Hill? — A. Well, I am a little
over one-quarter.
Q. You claim that you are descended from Billie Bottoms? — A. Yes. sir; he
was my grandfather.
Q. Where did he live, do you know? — A. When he died he was living in
Cherokee County, Tex.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. You say you lived In the ('hoctaw Nation in ISTs and 1879?— A. Yes. sir;
in the Chickasjiw Nation; the line was right close; close to Colbert.
Q. Then you went back to Cook County, and yon were sent up from Cook
County in 1887? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your father's name? — A. Ben Hill.
Witness excused.
William Anderson B^'armer, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testi-
tied as follows :
By Mr. Lee :
Q. Tell your name to this gentleman.— A. William Anderson Farmer.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Farmer? — A. Now I am camped at Melissa, in
Collin County, Tex.
Q. How long have you been down there? — A. Been there about six weeks.
Q. What were you doing in Texas? — A. Traveling with my wife for her
health.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 409
Q. Is she here? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you living in 1896?— A. West of Wynnewood, in the Chicka-
saw Nation.
Q. Is your wife related or not to the Hills and Bottoms?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What relation Is she to Z. T. Bottoms?— A. Well, Mr. Louis Hill and Blllle
Bottoms are her uncles.
Q. What relation Is she to Z. T. Bottoms?— A. Cousin to Tom Bottoms.
Q. Why did you not make application In 1S96, at the time I-ouis Hill made
application? — A. My wife had lost her mind and I couldn't get away from there,
and I couldn't get to go to the Dawes Commission.
Q. You had to be with her all the time, did you? Her condition was such that
you couldn't leave her? — A. Yes, sir; all the time.
Q. When did you leave that part of the country? — A. I — you mean west of
Wynnewood ?
Q. Yes. — A. I left there in — I reckon must have been the fall of 1900.
Q. How long was your wife In that condition? — A. Right at three years.
Q. Where did you take her from there? — A. To Mineral Wells, and from
there to Faber Junction and back to Wapanucka. Okla : only out with her about
nine months that time.
By Mr. Clapp :
Q. You were living west of Wynnewood In 1898?- A. 1896 and 1S98.
Q. Lived there until when— 1900?— A. Yes. sir.
By Mr. Hill :
Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old are they? — A. My oldest child is — she was born in 1881; and I
have a boy, then, that's 23. and one that's 22. and one that's 24 ; I have one that's
15 ; have a girl that's 19.
Q. Were they living with you at the time you lived west of Wynnewood? — A.
Yes, sir.
Q. In the same house with you? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far were you from the railroad? — A. Twelve miles west of Wynne-
wood, 3 miles east of Elmore, and 3 miles west of Brady.
Q. During the time, the three years that you S4iy your wife was afflicted,
these children lived with you there? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever write to the members of the Dawes Commission about your
claim to citizenship? — A. No. sir; I don't know as I ever wrote to them at all:
I can't write myself.
Q. Did any members of your family write to them during that time? — ^A. No.
sir; my family was small then, all but a girl, and she's hard of hearing; she's
afflicted herself.
Q. You didn't communicate with the Dawes Commission In any way? — A.
Vo, sir; not at that time I didn't.
Q. Did you with any of the tribal ofBclnls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Trtbes?— A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever vote at any of the Indian elections? — A. No, sir: I have
never voted at the Indian elections.
Q. Did you ever try to vote? — A. No, sir; never tried to vote.
Q. Ever held any lands as an Indian? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. How much rent did you pay for it? — A. How much rent? I didn't pay
any rent; I was recognized there as a Choctaw Indian; I taken up this land.
Q. Whereabouts? — A. Twelve miles west of Wynnewotxl and 3 miles east of
Bimore. I bought It from Bud Watkln. and It was Edna SheUlon's land and
Bud married her.
Q. Then you held a claim under a Choctaw-Chickasaw citizen? — X. Yes, sir.
Q. Buy the Improvements on it? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Well, during the time that you were traveling around over the countrj'
with your wife, or after she Improved, why didn't you make some application to
the Dawes Commission? — A. Well, the Dawes Commis*sion I don't suprmse was
here at the time that my wife was Improved so I could take her.
Q. You knew they were at Muskogee all the time, didn't you? — A. No, sir;
I didn't know that.
Q. Wh«i did you first decide to submit your claim? — A. When did I?
Q. When? — A. Well, I don't know when I first decided to make this claim.
I have l)een decided all the time, but I couldn't get before that Dawes Commis-
sion with my wife.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
410 FIVE dVILIZXD TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Who told you you had any right? — A. Well, I have been taught that eTcr
since I have been In the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation, that my wife waa a
native of the Choctaw Nation.
Q. Got any contracts with any lawyers? — ^A. No, sir; I haTen*t got any
contract with any lawyers.
Q. Has your wife got any?
Mr. Lee. We submit that that*s Immaterial, Mr. Hill.
A. My wife never made any contract with any lawyer. Momen Praitt came
to the house, but my wife wasn*t able to make a contract with him, and the
contract was made with other parties there.
By Mr. Lee:
Q When was this Momen Pruitt came out?— A- That waa 18^7, wasn't it?
I don't know Just what year it wa&
Q. Is your wife still subject to mental derangement?— A« Tee, sir.
Q. How often does that occur? — ^A. Every two or three weeks, and then
maybe for three or four months; Just now able to get about again.
Q. You spoke of a number of children. Give their names, please, in the order
of their ase. — A. Lizzie Jane.
Q. Is she married or single? — A. Single.
Q. How old is she?— A. She was bom in 1883, I believe, or 1882.
Q. What is the next one?— A. WiHiam Biward.
Q. Go ahead with them. What is the age of that one?— A. The first one?
Q. No; the one you just mentioned? — A. He was bom In 1886.
Q. All right. The name of the next one. — A. Lafayette Campton.
Q. How old?— A. He was bora in 1888.
Q. Any more? — A. Yes, sir; I have another one.
Q. Name that one, please. — A. Archie I^eroy.
Q. How old?— A. He is 16 years old the 15th of this month.
Q. Have you any more? — A. Katie; that's a girl; she's 18; she's married.
Q. What is her name now?— A. M. V. Wright.
Q. Married M. V. Wright?— A. Yes. sir.
Q. How long has she been married? — A. Three years.
Q. Has she any. children? — A. One.
Q. What's its name? — A. I don't know.
Q. Now, Mr. Farmer, were any of these children old enough to be left in the
care of your wife in 1896? — A. No, sir; they wasn't, in the shape my wife
was in.
Q. Was she confined to her bed? — A. She was down on the bed and helpless.
Q. Was she at times in such condition as to require you to hold her? — ^A. Yes;
sometimes two men couldn't hold her ; had to tie her feet and hands.
Q. Did you have any talk with Ix>uis Hill about this case at the time be
made his application? — A. Never seen him then.
Q. How far was he from you? — A. He was at Colbert, and I was west of
Wynnewood.
Q. Did you come in contact with Z. T. Bottoms at that time?— A. No, sir.
Q. How' far were you from him at that time?— A. About 35 miles, but I didn't
know at that time that Bottoms was there.
Q. Did you at any time ever try to go before the Dawes Commission or rtse-
where? — A. I did one time at Durant.
Q. Do you remember what year that was?— A. I dont know whether It was
the commission or that doubtful court. No; I don't remember what year
that was.
Q. Were you A. It must be in 18ft8, wasn't it, when they were there?
Q. You now think it was In 1898?— A. Well, It was when they was dowa at
Durant, the only time they was there.
Q. Do you remember what was told you at that time? — ^A. Never told me
nothing; that's what they told me — said to step aside.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. What money did your family ever draw from the Choctaw Nation? Did
they draw any? — A. No, sir.
Q. You don't claim any of them were ever on the rolls?— A. W^, my family
wasn't on the rolls, but Hills claim they are on the roll. My family was In soch
condition I couldn't get there with them.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 411
By Mr. Hill:
Q. I didn't uuderstand about tliat court that you went before at Durant. You
say you went before the court? — A. I went there to get before the court, but I
never went before it.
Q. How long were you thare? — A. Two days and nights.
Q. Was your family there with you at that time? — A. Yes, sir; I had my
wife there.
Q. She was able to travel about then? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she go before the court? — ^A. Well, I ^ink she went in there. I don't
Ivnow whether she went before it or not. I think she was in there.
Q. Did you go to Durant on purpose to go before the court?— A. My business
when I went out — I started out with my wife for her health, and we heard of
the court there and landed down there. i
Q. And stayed there two days?— A. Yea, sir.
Q. Did you make any effort to get before the court? — A. I seen around there
and talked to the Hills about it at that time. The Dawes Commission was
there, but I don't remember anything that was said to me before it.
Q. You never talked to any of the members of the Dawes (Commission
there? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Nor anybody representing them?— A, Well, I talked to J. G. Ralls — ^no, he
wasn't representing the commiBSion. '
Q. He represented the citizenship clatmants; but did you talk to anybody
connected with tlie commission there about going before them? — ^A. No, sir; I
never.
Q. Where were you married? — ^A. I was married in Hunt County, 12 miles
south of Greenville, Tex.
Q. When?— A. In 1881 or 1880.
Q. When did you come to the Indian Territory' ?— A. I came here In 1886 or
1887. I don't remember Just which It was. I have been here about 24 years.
Witness excused.
Susanna Jane Parmer, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified
as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. (live yonr full name, please. — ^A. Susanna Jane Farmer.
Q. Are you related to Mr. Hill that was Just on the stand a moment ago? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What relation are you to him? — A. He's my uncle.
Q. What relation are you to Louis Hill? — A. He was my uncle.
Q. What relation are you to Z. T., Tom, Bottoms? — ^A. Cousin.
Q. Do you know anything about who your parents and grandparents were
on both sides? Can you give me any information about that? — A. Well, my
grandmother was a Hill.
Q. What was her name?— A. Piety Hill.
Q. Do you know who Piety Hill's parents were? — ^A. Bottoms.
Q. Who was her father? — A. Billie Bottoma
Q. Now can you give the names of your children?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Kindly state tnem, please, tha names and ages, as you give them. — A.
Lizzie Jane Fanner.
Q. How old is she? — A. She will be 28 the 9th of this month — of December.
Q. What is the next one? — ^A. William Edward Farmer.
Q. How old is he?— A. He will be 24 years old in next October.
Q. Next one. — A. Lafayette Campton.
Q. How do you spell that? — A. We call him Camp; I don't know how you
speh it.
Q. How old is he?— A. Twenty-two.
Q. What is the next one?— A. Katie.
Q. Katie Farmer?— A. Katie Claytie Fanner.
Q. How oW is she? — A. Nineteen the 25th of July next.
Q. Any more? — A. Archie Leroy.
Q. How old* is he?— A. He will be 16 the 13th of March.
Q. Any more? — A. No, sir; that's all.
Q. Are these children all living with you now? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when you were at Durant with your husband at the
time he spoke of a moment ago?— A. Yes, sir; I remember being there.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
412 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Did you go before any of the Government officers at that time? — ^A. I
went in there where the Dawes Commission was.
Q. Did you have anything to say to any of the members of the Dawes Com-
mission?— ^A. No, sir; nothing, only he asked me if I was Indian by blood, and
I told him I was, and he read a little piece and said step aside.
Q. Who did that?— A. I don't know.
Q. Was he one of the commissioners? — ^A. Yes, sir; I reckon so.
Here counsel for claimants requests that a search be made for such an appli-
cation.
By Mr. Clapp;
Q. What was your mother's name?— A. Nancy Jane Hill.
Q. What was your father's name? — ^A. J. M. Reagan.
Q. What sort of a looking man was this that told you to step aside at
Durant? — ^A. Great, big, fleshy lookiug fellow.
Q. How did you know that was the DaweS Commission? — A. I don't know:
only they were in there for tliat business^ I reckon; registering or whatever
they call it.
Q. What year was that? — A. I declare I don't know now.
Q. Did they ask you if you claimed to l>e on any tribal rolls? — ^A. Yee, sir;
I told them I had been taught from an infant tliat I was Indian.
Q. You told them that you knew you were not on the tribal rolls, didn't
you?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they ask if you drew any money? — A. They only asked me mighty
few questions.
Q. Asked you if you had ever been admitted to citizenship? — A. No, sir.
Q. How much Choctaw blood do you claim? — ^A. Well, I don't Imow exactly.
Q. All you told the people tliat you appeared before there at Durant was
that you had been taught you had Choctaw blood? — ^A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Hiix:
Q. Mrs. Farmer, you are the wife of the man who was Just on the stand? —
A Yes, sir. *
Q. Your mother, you said, was a Hill? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your father was a Reagan? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were they married? — ^A. Well, I couldn't tell you that.
Q. Well, where did they live?— A. Well, they lived there in Hunt County,
Tex.
Q. Do you know how long they had lived in Hunt County, Tex? — ^A. No,
sir; I don't.
Q. Were you born in Hunt County, Tex.? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old are you now?— A, Well, I am 54 years old, I reckon; I was bom
in 1855.
Q. You were bom at the old homestead there in Hunt County? — ^A. I was
born there in Hunt County close around the home I reckon.
Q. Well did you ever hear your parents say how long they liad lived in that
country?— A. No, sir.
Q. Have you no idea about how long they lived in that country? — ^A. No, I
don't at present.
Q. Well, were you the oldest child?— A. Yes, sir; I am the oldest child.
Q. What business were they engaged in there?— A. My father was a farmer.
Q. What suite did your father come from to Texas?— A. I don't know what
State my father came from.
Q. Was he born in Texas himself ?— A. I couldn't tell you.
Q. Do you know whether your mother was bom in Texas or not? — A. No. sir.
Q. What relation was your mother to William Hill, who was on the witness
stand Just now?— A. Brother and sister.
Q. You remember when you lived up here west of WjTinewood? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you live there?— A. I don't know; seemed like a long time.
Q. Did you have any relatives living close to you up there?- A. My sister.
Q. Your sister?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. She lived up there with you?— A. Close to me.
Q. How far from you?— A. Well, I reckon she lived about a quarter.
Q. On the same place?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was she married at that time?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Her husl)an<l living there with liorV— A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did they live there?— A. About as lonj: as we have. I reckon.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 413
Q. They were there when you were there sick? — A. Yes, sir; they was there
when I was sick.
Q. Did you go to town any, did you visit Wyuuewood any during the time
you lived there? — A. I think I was there one time.
Q. Were your father and mother ever in Indljin Territory? Were they ever
in this country? — ^A. Why, I don't know.
Q. They are dead* now? — ^A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. All these children you have named, are they all alive? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have never been declared an incompetent or insane, have yon? — A.
No, sir; I reckon not; I don't know.
Q. When you appeared before that court or commission in Durant you were
in your right mind? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have been ever since, haven't you? — A. No, sir; I haven't.
Q. Have there been intervals when you haven't? — A. I don't know what you
might call it; I Just get that way gradually.
Q. You are in your right mind now? — A. Yes; I reckon so.
Q. Well, have you been this way all the time? — A. No, sir; about eight years
ago, I reckon, or ten.
Q. About eight years ago? — A. Eight or ten, I don*t know Just how long.
Witness excused.
Rebecca Ellen Powell, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified
as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your full name, please. — A. Rebecca Ellen Powell.
Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Powell? — A. I live at Wapanucka.
Q. How long have you been living there? — A. I don't know exactly; I have
been there a good while ; right around Wapa for the last 10 years.
Q. Yo« are married, are you? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your husband's name? — ^A. W. H. Powell.
Q. Where were you living in 1896, Mrs. Powell?— A. Well, I couldn't tell you
that ; I can't keep up with the years.
Q. Are you a sister of Mrs. Farmer, that was Just on the stand? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attempt to make any application in 1896 for enrollment before the
Dawes Commission? — A. No, sir.
Q. Did you at any time after that? — A. No, sir; I don't know as I have.
Q. Are you a full sister of Mrs. Farmer? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Same father and same mother? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any children? — ^A. Yes, sir; I have got five children.
Q. What are their names, please? — A. Well, the oldest one is named Cordie.
Q. Is that a boy or girl?— A. Girl.
Q. How old is she?— A. She's 23.
Q. Is she married? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is her married name? — ^A. Adraholtz.
Q. Do you know how to spell it? — ^A. No, sir: I can't spell.
Q. Has this girl any children? — ^A. She's got one baby.
Q. How old is it?— A. Be 2 years old in February.
Q. Now, what is your next child? — ^A. Next one is 20 years old.
Q. What is its name? — A. Nora Catherine Gentry now— she's married.
Q. How long has she been married? — A. She's been married four years.
Q. Has she any children? — A. She's got two.
Q. How old is the oldest? — A. Little girl nearly 3 years old, and then a baby.
Q. What is its name? — A. Archie is the youngest and Grade is the oldest.
Q. Now what is your next child's name? — A. William is the next oldest.
Q. William Powell?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old is he?— A. He will be 19 years old the 20th of January.
Q. Is he married?— A. No, sir.
Q. Living with you?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the name of the next one? — ^A. Lucinda, 17 years old.
Q. Is she single? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Dpes she live with you?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. nW, there's one more, isn't there?— A. A girl.
Q. What is her name?— A. Bessie, 13 years old.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
414 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. What is your mother's name? — A. My mother she's named Jane Reagan.
Q. And your father's name? — ^A. James Reagan.
Q. You consider that you are entitled to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation 1^-
A. Yes. sir; I thinly I am entitled to it.
Q. Have you always thought that? — A. Yes, sir; because I have been taught
from my mother I was Indian.
Q. You know Louis Hill, don't j'ou? — A. Yes, sir; he's my uncle.
Q. How does he come to be your uncle? — ^A. He is my mother*8 brother.
Q. You knew that he had been denied admission to citizenship by the Choc-
taw Nation, didn't you? — A. I don't know.
Q. Didn't you ever hear that?— A. I don't know anything about It
Q. You don't know anything about that? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. You never drew any moneys from the Choctaw Nation?— A. No. sir; I
never drew any.
Q. Don't claim to have been on any tribal roll? — A. No. sir.
Witness excused.
William Harvey Powell, being duly swoni and examined as a witness, testi-
fied as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your full name, please. — A. William Harvey Powell.
Q. Are you the husband of the lady that was just on the stand? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. When were you married to her? — ^A. Married in 1880.
Q. Where? — A. Twelve miles south of Grewiville, In Hunt County, Tex.
Q. How long have you lived in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations? —
A. Ever since 1887.
Q. Where were you in 1896? — A. Near Elmore.
Q. Did you make any attempt, personally or throng others, to have applica-
tion made for your wife at that time? — A. Yes, sir; we wrote to John Ham-
phrey— J. G. Humphrey.
Q. What did you say in that letter? — ^A. We wrote to have Uncle Louis Hill
to have our names put in the application.
Q. Did Mr. Humphrey reply to that letter? — ^A. Well, I don't r^nember
whether he did or not.
Q. Can you say why you didn't take your wife before the commisslcm? —
A. Well, we had to be there with Mrs. Farmer.
Q. Were you aiding in taking care of her at that time? — A. Yes, sir; we helloed
to take care of her when she was crazy.
Q. Did you ever make any other ^ort to get before the Dawes Commis-
sion?— A. Yes, sir; we went before the Dawes Commission at Atoka in 18d9.
Q. What did you do there In the way of trying to make application? — ^A. We
just went before the commission and claimed our citizenship.
Q. Well, what did the commission say to you? — A. They asked me a few
questions and wrote it down and then told me to step asida
Q. Was your wife with you at that time? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was Mr. Farmer there at that time?— A. Yes; he was along with us, but
he never went before them.
Q. Do you know anything about your wife's parentage? — A. I knew her
father and mother.
Q. Who were they? — A. Her mother was Jane Reagan, and her father ^-as
Jim Reagan.
Q. Well, do you know who the grandparents were? — ^A. No, sir; I never knew
them.
Q. Did you ever make any attempt to be recognized or enrolled by the tribal
officials at any time? — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember when Louis Hill went before the council of the Choct.nw
Nation?— A. Well, he was there, I think, in 1887.
Q. 1887.— A. I think it was.
Q. Did you make any effort then? — ^A. I asked him to attend to my case
then.
Q. Well, did he sav he would?— A. He said he would, and that was the last
of It.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. You know that the Choctaw tribunal rejected Louis Hill, don't you?—
A. Well, I don't know what you call it. This citizenship court knocked him out
FIV£ CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 415
Q. Well, back in 1887 or 1888 the Choctaw officials knocked him out didn't
they? — ^A. I suppose they did.
Q. You never considered that your wife was a recognized citizen aft«* that,
did you?— A. I don't know as I paid much attention to it, but other Indians,
citizens of the Territory, said she was entitled to it.
Q. That's what you went on? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you went to Atokn before the Dawes Commissiou? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Who were the members that were there of the commissiou? — A. I couldn't
tell you the names : Bixby, I think, was one ; the only one I remember.
Q. What sort of a looking man was he? — A. I couldn't describe the man.
Q. Anything about him that you can remember? — A. Only that a large man
that asked questions ; I don't know whether it was Bixby or not.
Q. They asked you If you or your family was on the tribal rolls, didn't
they? — A. They asked me if I was a citizen; I told them no, but I claimed it
through my wife, for her and the children.
Q. Did they ask you if she had any tribal recognition ?— A. No, sir.
Q. Was she there?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they ask her any questions? — *V. I couldn't tell you what they asked
her.
Q. Couldn't tell me? — A. No, sir; they questioned me and put me out and then
she went In.
Q. Did they ask you whether she had ever applied to the tribal authorities
for admission?— A. No; never asked that question.
Q. Where do you live now? — A. Wapanucka, Johnson County.
Q. That's your post-offlce address? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Live right in town? — A. No; a mile north of town.
By Mr. Hill :
Q. When did you come to the Indian Territory? — ^A. First came In 1887.
Q. How did you happen to move up here? — ^A. Well, I came up here because
my wife had some people up here and I wanted to see the country.
Q. What people did she have up here? — A. Uncle; and then she had a lot of
cousins.
Q. How long had they been up here? — A. Well, I couldn't tell you how long.
Q. When did you say you were married? — A. In 1880, the 11th day of July.
Q. Were your wife's people living up here when you were married? — A. No,
sir; in Texas.
Q. In Texas? — A. That is, her cousins and uncles were in the Territory.
Q. Was it her people that told her after she moved up here that she was an
Indian? — A. Well, I couldn't tell you about that.
Q. Don't remember who told her that she was an Indian? — A. No, sir; I
don't know how she ever fonnd that out.
Q. You never voted in any of the Indian elections? — A. No, sir.
Q. Your wife never drew any payments? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. You never reported to any of the Indian officials that your wife was an
Indian? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. You never sought any sort of recognition as an intermarried citizen from
the Indian officials?— A. No, sir.
Q. Your wife never sought any recognition as an Indian from the tribal of-
flclals?— A. Not that I know of.
Q. You lived in this country a long number of years? — A. Yes; a good many
years.
Q. Who did you rent land from when you first came up here? — A. I never
rented any ; worked for day's labor.
Q. Hare you ever rented any lands since you came here? — A. I rented from a
man by the name of — let's see — I will tell you directly — Carrolton, and rented
some from Joe
Q. Well, the land you rented was In both Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations? —
A. Yes. sir ; first in the Chickasaw.
Q. You lived about from different places? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a tenant? — A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. Who was this Mr. Humphrey that you wrote to? Was he a relative of
yours? — A. Cousin to my wife.
Q. Did he make application in 1896? — A. I suppose so.
Witness excused. ^ j
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
416 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
George J. Humphrey, being duly sworn and examined as a witness,' testified
as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Give your full name. — A. George J. Humphrey.
Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. At Ardmore.
Q. Are you an applicant in what is known as the Bottoms-Hill case? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What relation are you to Louis Hill? — A. Nephew.
Q. What relation are you to Z. T. Bottoms? — A. Second cousin.
Q. What relation are you to Mrs. Powell, who was on the stand a moment
ago? — A. Own cousin.
Q. First cousin? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Do you know anything about attempts of Mrs. Powell to make application
in 1896?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just state that please. — A. Well, I wrote them a letter that uncle I^uis
Hill and myself — I made application myself, you understand, before the Dawes
Commission, and I found out that my name wasn't in with uncle Louis's family
before the council and, you understand, I made apllcation before the commission
and referred them to his evidence; and I wrote BiUie Powell a letter to come
down there and we would put in the Reagan children, and he wrote me a
letter stating that Farmer's wife was crazy and he couldn't leave, and wanted
me to attend to it and to ask uncle Ix)uls Hill to attend to It, -and sent their
names down there, and so I went to Colbert Station and seen uncle Louis Hill,
and he came to C\>algate with me. I was living at Coalgate then, and he agreed
to do it and put in their names.
Q. Did you understand that he had done so? — A. I thought all their names
were put in the application until later on.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. How much later? — A. I don't know. After it was rejected by the com-
mission we went to take an appeal ; that's when I found out different After
it was rejected by the commission we appealed to the United States District
Court at McAlester, and, of course, in the appeal, why, of course, the names
that was there was the only names we could ^peal for, and I wrote Powell
a letter and told him he had better get busy and do it — ^their relatives — that it
was left out. •
Witness excused.
Susanna Jane Farmer, recalled testified as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mrs. Farmer, have you any brothers or sisters living near where you are
now? — A, Yes, sir; two brothers.
Q. What are their names, please? — ^A. Jim and John Reagan.
Q. Full brothers to you? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they in any citizenship case that you know of? — A. Yes, sir; they are
just like we are.
Q. Never made any application? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did they ask you to represent them here? — ^A. No, sir; I haven't seen —
one of them I haven't seen for four years, and the other one Is living there,
and I thought he was coming on.
Q. Do you know anything about why they didn't make application in 1896? —
A. No, sir.
Mr. Lee. We would like to ask to have the record in the Z. T. Bottoms and
Louis Hill cases, as they now exist in the files of the commission, referred to
in this case, and the evidence of record in those cases considered in the matter
of the application of the claimants who have been presented here.
Mr, Clapp. I think the attorneys for the Chickasaw Nation will have to
object to that, for the reason no opportunity is proffered for cross-examination.
Mr. Hill. I join In the objection.
Mr. Pollock. The objections will be noted.
Witness excused.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 417
November 11, 1910.
WilHam Benjamin Hill, recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mr. Hill, when yon were here yesterday I neglected to ask If yon had
any children; have you any? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. 8tate their names, please.— A. Oldest one is a girl, she's
Q. What is her name? — A. Ella May; her name is Hargroves, she's married.
Q. Has she any children?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are their names?— A. She's got four now, but 1 don't know their
ages.
Q. Give us their names. — A. The oldest one is a girl named Florence, and the
next oldest one is — I don't know the rest of their names.
Q. Do you know how old the oldest one is? — ^A. She's now about 10 years old,
I think.
Q. Can yon recall the name of the second one? — A. It*s a funny name and I
have forgot It; I cant' call her name; havenf been with them much since I got
out
Q. What is your next child's name? — A. She's a girl, Mattie Corrinnle.
Q. Is she married? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. How long has she been marrie<l? — A. Well, now, I couldn't tell you the
year she was married in ; I was down there in the pen ; but she has two children.
Q. W^hat are their names? — A. Oldest, Onle, and I don't know the baby's
name.
Q. How old is Onle? — A. About 8 years old — something like 8 years.
Q. Now what is the marrletl name? — ^A. What is her husband's name?
Q. What?— A. Judson Forellne.
Q. Do yoy know how to spell Forellne? — ^A. P-o-r-e-l-i-n-e.
Q. What is your next child? — A. A son; his name is William Franklin; he's
25 years old this las' July.
Q. Is he married? — A. No, sir. Now Mattie is 27.
Q. What is your next child?— A. l^urn, the youngest one; she's 28 years old
the 81st day of last October.
Q. Is she married? — A. No, sir.
Q. What is your next one? — A. I haven't any more.
Q. What is your wife's name? — ^A. Her last name?
Q. Your wife's name? — A. Her name E. C. — BliEabeth Caroline. •
Q. Were you lawfuly married to her? — ^A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Clapp:
Q. Are these children and grandchildren that you have named all living? —
A. Well, now, I dont' know, but they was living three months ago there in
Throckmorton County, Tex.
Q. How long have they lived there? — ^A. I lived there about six months,
and then I came in to Durant and stayed down there.
Q. Were these children living with you in Cook County when you were
sentenced? — A. Yes, sir. Two died after I went to the pen; the oldest son and
next to the oldest daugher died while I was in the pen, and that left four
living.
Q. Any of them lived in the Indian Territory?— A. Yes, sir; in 1878 and 1879.
Q. That's when you were here? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. They haven't been here since? — A. No, sir; I went over there to Cook
County and got into trouble just before I left there, and went off to the pen
from that on. so I didn't get back in the Territory, but I paid no permit when
the $25 permit was out. I was recognized at Colbert there as a Choctaw, paid
no permit at all, and when I was on the dodge
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. Where was this youngest child born? — A. The youngest child was bom in
the Territory — the last one.
Q. What year was she born in? — A. She was bom in 1887.
Q. 1887? — A. Yes, sir; she was born in October after I was arrested In
August. My wife came back to the Territory after I was arrested.
Q. These grandchildren have never lived in the Territory at all? — ^A. No,
sir; I don't think that they have. The oldest I think was bom In the Terri-
tory— Florence. I wouldn't be certain ; you see I was down there. They move
around so much and so often I don't know where they go.
69282—13 27 Digitized by V^OOg Ic
418 FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Has this oldest child of yours ever lived In the Territory— in the Choctaw
Nation — after she became of age? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?— A. She used to live down here at Ravia, In the Chicka-
saw Nation.
Q. When was that? — A. It was about 14 or 15 years ago; she was raised
almost right down here at Ravia, and then she was married, I think, here at
Norton.
Q. You stated In your statement that they had never lived in the Terri-
tory after you had gone to the pen. or after you left here ; that they went out
with you? — A. After I was arrested they came back to the Territory and stayed
in the Territory a good while, and the oldest daughter married, and next to
the oldest daughter married here In the Chickasaw Nation; that's the way of
It ; and then they moved out there, but I don't know what year.
Witness excused.
DuBANT, Okla., November /-J. 1910.
Appearances: Albert J. Lee, attorney for claimant; G. D. Rodgers. attorney
for Chickasaw Nation.
James M. Reagan, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your name. — ^A. James M. Reagan.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Reagan?— A. Well. I am now camped at Melissa,
in Collin County, Tex.
Q. Where Is your home? — A. Well, you might say I haven't none. I have
made the Territory my home for the last 20 or 23 years, but I haven't been
In here all the time : I have been in and out.
Q. Where were you living in 1896? — ^A. I believe I was at Elmore; I am not
sure.
Q. Are you related to the Bottoms and Hills? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. At that time did you know they were making application to the commis-
sion for enrollment? — A. Yes, sir: I think so. to the best of my recollection.
Q. Did you make any application for yourself at that time? — ^A. No. sir.
Q. Did you at any time after ihat? — ^A. Yes; I did; at Atoka here, two or
three years after that.
Q. Two or three years after 1896? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you fix the exact year? — A. No.
Q. Who was with you at the time you made that application? — A. Well, I
believe Powell was there.
Q. Anyone else? — A. I don't remember anyone else.
Q. Did you go Ijefore the commission i)ersonally? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what was said to yon by the commission? — A. No. sir:
I do not : he didn't say but a few words to me.
Q. What was the purport of what he said to you? — A. He asked me if I
claimed Indian blood and I told him I did. and he asked me a few more ques-
tions and then he said to step aside.
Q. Did you ever go before the commission after that? — A. No. sir.
Q. Do you know I»uls Hill? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What relation was he to you? — A. My uncle.
Q. Uncle?— A. Yes. sir.
Q. By blood or marriage? — A. By blood.
Q. Do you know Z. T. Bottoms?— A. Yes. sir.
Q. What relation was he to you?— A. Well, he was. I believe, a great-uncle.
I was very smali when my people died and I don't remember much about any
of my relation.
Q. Who was your mother?— A. Hill— Jane Hill.
Q. Before she married your father? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Was she a sister of I^uls Hill?- A. Yes. sir.
Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are their names and ages?— A. Well, the oldest one his name was
James Pascal, born September 4, 1895.
Q. What Is your next child?— A. Charles B. Reagan.
Q. Charles B.?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was he born?— A. November 2, 1899.
Q. What is your next child?— A. Elsie O.
Q. When was she bom?— A. May 10. 1902. ^ j
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 419
Q. Any more? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the next one?— A. Marvin A.
Q. Is that a boy?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was he born?— A. March 14. 1904.
Q. Any others?— A. Franklin C.
Q. When was he born? — A. January 9, 1905.
Q. Are there any others bom before March, 1906? That's the last one bom
before that time, was it?— A. Well, here's one April the 10th. 1906. My second
child is dead ; I haven't got its name on here.
Q. .When did he die?— A. She died January 9, 1899.
Q. Now, you say you don't remember anyone else that was with you at the
time you applied to the commission with Powell? — A. I don't remember any.
Q. Have you a brother? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is his name? — A. John H. Reagan.
Q. Was he there at that time? — A. Yes; he was there.
Q. Do you know whether he went before the commission or not?— A. No, sir;
I couldn't tell you. Ifs all been so long ago my memory has failed uie and I
liaven't got a good recollection no way.
Witness excused.
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceed-
ings in the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of his stenographic notes.
Albert G. McMillan.
Subscril)ed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December. 1910.
[SEAL.] Habby MoNTAflUE, Xotary Public.
\
Oscar Casey et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 191.
RECX)RD.
August 31, 1896. Application for admission to citizenship filed,
sworn to by Oscar Casey. The application staties that applicants are
descendants of William Casey and Tempie Thomas; that Tempie
Thomas was a Chickasaw woman and married Casey in Mississippi ;
that application was made to the Chickasaw court of claims in August,
1895; that they paid a fee of $50 to have their case heard, and at-
tached to the application is the record of the Chickasaw court of
claims, reading as follows:
Received of (Oscar and Scott Casey) $50 by the Court of Claims for the
establishment of their cases of citizenship.
C. A. BURRIS,
Chairman of Court of Claims.
Attest :
R. n. Nichols. Clerk.
There is also attached to said application a paper, of which the
following is a copy:
Office Court of Claims,
Tishomingo, J. T., August 2h^ i^^5.
Motion made and carried that the case of Oscar and Scott Casey and J. W.
Howard be passed over to the Je^slnture for the want of the two witnesses
required by the law produced by the secretary this morning.
C. A. BURRIS,
Chairman C. on C.
Attest :
R. H. Nichols. ClerU.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
420 FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
AFFIDAVITS ATTACHED.
Susan Brown makes affidavit that she is a Chickasaw by blood ; that
she is 80 years old ; that her first husband was a brother of Tempie
Thomas; that Tempie Thomas had three brothers, Jim, George, and
Robert Thomas; that the mother of these children was a fufi-blood
Chickasaw woman and their father a white man.
Tempa Ann Casey makes affidavit that she lives in Lamar County,
Tex. ; that she is 76 years old ; that she was bom in Mississippi ; that
her father's name was Thomas; that her mother was a rull-blood
Chickasaw woman; that she moved from Mississippi in 1850 with
her husband, William Casey ; that Scott Casey and Oscar Casey are
her children.
F. M. Miner makes affidavit that he has known Scott Casey and
Oscar Casey for 25 years ; that he knows their blood " as other races
are distinguished"; that they have always been known as Indians,
and that he believes them to he Chickasaws.
October 31, 1896. Answer by Chickasaw Nation filed. The an-
swer denies that the commission has jurisdiction, but says that appli-
cants are not entitled to enrollment: that applicants have no con-
clusive evidence that they are entitled to enrollment; that the petition
of applicants is without foundation in fact or proof. Attached to
the answer is the affidavit of C. A. Burris, who states that he " never
knew or heard of any persons of the name of Casey who were
Chickasaws."
November 23, 1896. The following indorsement was made upon
application in lead pencil : " Oscar Casej et al., applications denied."
Note. — No appeal was taken from this action.
September 20, 1902. Scott Casey appeared before Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes at Muskogee and applied for the enroll-
ment of himself and two minor children as Chickasaws. He testi-
fied that he had never been admitted to citizenship in the Chickasaw
Nation ; that he had lived in the Chickasaw Nation nine years : that
his name was Walter Winfield Casey, but that he was called Scott
Casey. No testimony was taken at this hearing as to applicant's
Indian blood or ancestry.
Deceinber 8, 1902. Decision of commission rendered, holding that
it was without authority to consider the case because of the act of
May 31, 1900.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
Counsel submit that as these claimants are admittedly of Chicka-
saw blood and have lived in the Chickasaw Nation since before 1890,
applied to the citizenship committee and paid the price exacted, and
their case unacted upon, that they have done everything within their
power to establish their rights, are possessed of every qualification
entitling them to enrollment, and were denied under the act of May
31, 1900, upon a strictly jurisdictional ground, that they are in equity
and good conscience entitled to enrollment. They are : Oscar Casey,
Scott Casey (real name Walter Winfield Casey), Bob Casey, Sammie
Casey.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee,
^"''^^fd^^S^^'*-
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 421
Cathekinb Whittle et al., Choctaws.
The leading claimant is a full sister of Sarah Whittle, who, with
her children, is enrolled upon the final roll of Choctaws by blood as
approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
Sarah Whittle and hef* children are enrolled opposite the follow-
ing numbers on said roll: 500, ^Vhittle, Sarah; 501, Whittle, Na-
Eoleon; 502, Whittle, John; 503, Carr, Alma; 504, Whittle, Madge
u ; 505, Whittle, Susan C. ; 15040, Whittle, Arthur.
1899. Original application made to Commission to Five Civi-
lized Tribes at Durant, Ind. T., for enrollment of Catherine Whittle,
Bessie Whittle, Lillie Whittle, Annie Whittle, John Whittle, her
children, as citizens by blood, and C. M. Whittle, her husband, as an
intermarried citizen of the Choctaw Nation.
June 15, 1900. Further proceedings in this case and application
made to commission for ioentification as Mississippi Choctaws of
Catherine Whittle, C. M. Whittle, her husband, and Lillie Pearl
Whittle, Annie K. Whittle, Marion John Whittle, Mantitia P. Whit-
tle, and Eva Clara Whittle, her children.
June 16, 1900. Application made to commission for identification
as Mississippi Choctaws of Bessie May Hines (formerly Bessie May
Whittle) as a Mississippi Choctaw.
Subsequentlv applications were made for the identification as
Mississippi Choctaws of Rosa Pearl Hines (child of Lillie Petri
Whittle, now Hines), Mary Elizabeth Hines (child of Bessie May
Hines).
August 1, 1903. Decision of commission refusing application of
claimants.
November 13, 1905. Decision of commission approved by depart-
ment.
It appears from the record that Catherine Wliittle has resided con-
tinuously in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation since about the year
1894 fkJid that she is a full sister of Sarah Whittle, who, with her
children, was admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by an act
of the Choctaw Council of November 5, 1895, and thev are now en-
rolled upon the final rolls of the citizens bv blood of the Choctaw
Nation as approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
The other claimants herein are children and grandchildren of the
leading claimant, Catherine Wliittle.
Counsel for claimants represent that as the^ leading claimant has
resided continuously in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations since
1894, and is a full sister of Sarah Whittle; and as said Sarah Whittle
and her children have been enrolled and approved as Choctaws by
blood, the claimants herein are entitled to be enrolled as Choctaws.
Those entitled to enrollment are as follows: Catherine Whittle, C. M.
Whittle, Lillie Pearl Whittle. Annie K. Whittle, Marion John Whit-
tle, Mantitia P. Whittle, Eva Clara Whittle, Bessie May Hines, Rosa
Pearl Hines, Mary Elizabeth Hines (10 in all).
Further evidence taken by Judge Pollock for the department,
December 16, 1910, copy of which is hereto attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
422 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Depabtment of the Intebiob.
Muskogee, Okla., December 16, 1910.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Catherine Whittle et aL
lib citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
Proceedings had at Durant, Okla., November 14, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney Interior Department.
Appearances: Ballinger & Lee, by Albert J. Lee, attorneys for claimants
Rodgers & Clapp, by Geo. D. Rodgers, attorneys for Chickasaw Nation.
William N. Hines, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your name. — A. William N. Hines.
Q. Who is your wife, Mr. Hines? — ^A. Bessie May Whittle, before we were
married.
Q. Is Bessie May Whittle a daughter of Catherine Whittle?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was her father?~-A. Marion Whittle.
Q. What are his initials?— A. C. M., I think is the way he signs his name.
Q. Mr. Hines, the record of the commission at Muskogee In this case shows
that you made application for the enrollment of Mary Elizabeth Hines. Is
that the correct name of that child? — A. No, sir; her correct name is Mamie
Elizabeth.
Q. Have you any children other than Mamie Elizabeth Hines? — ^A. Yes, sir:
one little boy, Marvin Marzene.
Q. How old is he? — A. About six years old.
Q. When was he bom?— A. He was bom in 1904.
Q. Do you remember the month? — ^A. February the 6th, I think, if I mistake
not. (Witness here hands paper to Mr. Lee and states he can not read the
names on it.)
Q. Did you have your wife set down the dates of the birth of these children
l)efore you came to town? — A. Yes, sir; this moming as soon as I got the word
to come to town.
Q. Is the list that you Just gave me the list she prepared for yon? — ^A.
Yes, sir.
Q. And you can not read the list? — A. No, sir; got no education at all. and
can barely sign my name in box-car letters Just so it will go, and that's all.
Q. Have you got the pencil memorandum that she made? — A. If I haven't
1 can get it Just as she wrote it
Q. Have you any other children besides those two? — A. I have two more,
but they wouldn't go in — bora too late.
The names on the list witness offered were typewritten, and at this point he
is excused in order that he may go to the bank and secure the pencil list pre-
pared by his wife.
Li Hie Pearl Hines. being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your full name, please. — ^A. IJllle Pearl Hines.
Q. Who was your father and mother? — A. Father was Marion Whittle.
Q. Who was your mother? — ^A. Catherine Whittle.
- Q. What are your father's initials?— A. C. M.
Q. C. M. Whittle?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. The record of the commission shows that you made application for Rosa
Pearl Hines. Have you any children other than Rosa Pearl Hines?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many? — A. Four.
Q. State tlieir names and ages please? — ^A. Rosa Pearl Hines, she's 8
years old.
Q. She is the one that you made application for?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the next one?— A. Edna I.ee Hines, she will be 7 in January.
Q. What day In January?— A. The 8th.
g. What is your next child?— A. Herbert Buford Hines.
Q. When was he bom?— A. December 7, 1904, I believe it was.
Q. 1904?— n. Yes, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 423
Q. You Stated a momeDt ago tiiat the first child you named was 8 years
old — 7 years old in January?— A. The first one is 8 years old, and the other
one will be 7 this coming January.
Q. Now, then, this one you say was bom what year? — A. He was bom in
December, 1904, I think it is ; I wouldn't be certain. ^
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. You say this other child will be 7 next January? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he was bom in January, 1904?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, then, your next child is how much younger? — What Is the difference
between the two? — ^A. Well, there's right smart of difference. Buford, he will
he 5 this coming December— the one I am speaking about.
By Mr. Lke:
Q. Now that is three of them?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the name of the next one? — ^A. Jewel Wesley.
Q. Is that a boy?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was he born? — A. He was bom in January.
Q. What year? — ^A. I wouldn't be certain, but he's younger.
Q. How much younger than the one you named Just a moment ago? — A. Little
over a year.
Q. Have you a. list there with the ages? — ^A. It is right in there (indicating
.adjoining room).
Q. Get that, please. — A. (Witness hands paper to Mr. Lee.)
Q. Is this a list of the correct dates of birth of your children ?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you take this from? — A. We wrote it down.
Q. You wrote it down before coming here? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have these ages recorded in any book or Bible? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you copy that? — A. Yes, sir; from a book.
Q. What kind of a book?— A. A book sort o' like a Bible, but it wasn't a Bible.
Q. Who wrote the names and ages on this paper? — ^A. My husband.
Q. Is he here? — ^A. No, sir; he's not here.
By Mr. Rodgebs:
Q. What kind of a book have you got this in? — A. It's sennons — sort o' like
a Bible — good readings.
Q. Do you have the dates of the births of all your children in that book? —
A. No. sir; we had that wrote down in it, and we tore it out.
Q. Have you got that in the book?— A. No, sir; I tore that out.
Q. This was in the book and you tore it out and brought it along? — A. Yes,
sir.
Q. When was this written? — Wlien did your husband write it? — A. I don't
know exactly ; been about a year ago, I guess.
Q. He wrote it all down at once, did he? — ^A. Yes, sir; about a year ago.
Q. Do you know that these are the correct dates?— A. Yes, sir.
Q, How do you know it? — A. Well, we counted it up, and we know how old
they are, and we counted it up.
Q. When did you count it up? About a year ago, when that was put in the
book^ — ^A. Yes, sir; when that was wrote.
Q. Can't you count it up now and give us the correct date? — A. Well, I can of
some of them.
By Mr. Lee :
Q. Do you want to put this in as being the correct ages of your children? —
A. Well, I don't need to keep it as I know of.
Mr. Lie. We offer this as being the only record they have as to the ages of
the children.
Paper with names and a!?es filed.
By Mr. Pollock :
Q. Was there any other writing in that book other than you have here? —
A. No, sir. Well, there's two of them that's too young to be put on the rolls,
80 they say.
Q. How many children have you altogether?- A. Five.
Q. Mra Hines, was there any physician with you when Buford was bora? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was that?— A. The doctor?
Q. Yes.— A. Dr. Wells.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
424 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Where does he live? — ^A. He lives at Cale. I think, now, but I ain't sure.
Q. Was there any woman with you, also, then? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was that? — A. My mother — Mrs. Andrews — was all the one that was
there.
Q. Is she living down »ear you now? — A. Xo; she's not living close.
Q. Where Is she? — A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Buford, did you
say, or Wesley — which one? I might misunderstood you.
Q. Buford — the one that is 5 years old? — ^A. It was the other one.
Q. This Buford — the one that is 5 years old — that I was talking about? —
A. Duncan was the one that was with me then.
Q. Where does he live? — ^A. I don't know where she lives at now.
Q. Well, I thought you said there was a doctor with you then? — ^A. Xo, sir;
Mrs. Duncan.
Q. Was there any doctor there at that time? — A. Dr. Wells.
Q. He was with you both times? — ^A. Yes, sir*
Q. You can get him to sign a paper, can you? Do yon know wehre he is
now? — ^A. Cale.
Mr. Lee. We ask permission to file a birth certiflcate as to the birth of the
clUidren testified to by this witness.
By Mr. Lee :
Q. Are you applying now for the enrollment of all of these children? — A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Do you make any claim for the youngest one that was bom in 11K>7? —
A. Xo, sir; I guess not.
Witness excused.
William X. Hlnes recalled^ testified as follows f
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mr. Hlnes, you 8«y your wife was Llllie Penrl Whittle?— A. Xo, sir;
Bessie May.
Q. Do you know who Lillie Pearl Whittle married?--A. Xoah Hinee.
Q. What rf-lation is he to you?— A. He's a half brother.
Q. When you were ou the stand a moment ago you s{)oke of having a list
of the blrtlis of your children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you tlMit with you now? — Av I have it with me now.
Q. Who wrote these names and ages on this slip of iwjier? — A. My wife.
Q. When did slie write them? — A. This morning about 0 o'clock.
Q. Did she copy them from any book or records? — A. Xo, sir; she copied
tiiem Just the best she could think of the age.
Q. Where is your wife now? — A. She's at home.
Q. Is she in condition to travel so you could bring her here? — A. Xo, sir.
We got no family record of the childr«i.
Q. What do you say now is the age of Mamie Elizabeth Hines? — ^A. She's
about 9 years old.
Q. And what did you say the age of Marzene Hines is? Can you fix now the
age of her birth better than you did a while ago?— A. The year of Marvin's
Wrth?
Q. Yes. — A. I declare I put that to about as little study as any man you ever
feeen. Sometimes men ask me how many children I got and I have got to stop
and study before I can tell him. He's about 6 years old, or rl^t at 6. Xow,
I couldn't no more tell « man their ages and births at all — that IS, correctly;
Just about, is all I can do.
Counsel for claimants request that they he permitted to furnish certificate«i as
to the dates of the birth of the two children just testified about.
Mr. RoDGERS. I suggest that these be doctor's affidavits, If possible.
Mr. Lee. Well, that is what we are going to get.
By Mr, Pollock :
Q. When that child Marvin was born, did your wife liave a doctor? — A. Sent
for the doctor, but he didn't get there in time; he came afterwards.
Q. Was there any midwife with her?-— A. Mrs. Sims,
Q, Is the doctor who came there living yet? — ^A* Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he live?— A. At Sterrett; some calls it Cale.
Q. Is this woman living yet whefe you can reach her? — A. No» sir; I aup-
pose she's dead.
Witness excuse<l.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE GIVILIZBD TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 425
Sarah Whittle, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your name, please. — ^A. Sarah Whittle.
Q. Where do you live? — ^A. Down near IJtlca, my home Is there.
Q. Do you know Catherine Whittle?— A. Yes. sir.
Q. What relation is she to you ? — A. My sister.
Q. Mra Whittle, are you nn enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation? — A. Yes,
air.
Q. Have your land as such? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you and your sister lived in the Choctaw Nation-the same length of
time? — A. I was here one year before she came.
Q. What year did you come in? — A. I never Isept no account.
Q. How many years have you been here, Mrs. Whittle? — ^A- AJ[>out 17.
Q. Seventeen years? — ^A. Yes. sir.
Q. Did you attempt to secure the enrollment of your sister when you went be-
fore the Choctaw Council? — A. Xo, sir, we didn't. The council was about
ready to adjourn when I was enrolled and we couldn't get any more business
before them, owing to the condition of things.
Witneas excused.
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceedings
had in the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and correc;.t
transcript of his stenographic notes.
Albert G. McMillan.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of December. 1910.
[seal.] Harby Montague, Notary Public,
I, Catherine Whittle, on oath state that I was present and assisted Mrs.
Sarah Sims, who was a midwife, but died in 1909, and attended on Bessie May
Hines, wife of William N. Hines, on the 5th day of January, 1904; that ther^*
was bom to her on said date a male child; that said child was living March 4,
1906, and Is said to have been named Marvin Marzine Hiues. this the 17th day
of November, 1910.
Catherine Whittle.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 17th day of November, A. D.
1910.
[seal.] W. J. O'Donley, Notary Public.
My commission expires December 9, 1913.
Birth Affidavit.
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to- the Five Civilized Tribes.
enrollment of minors. act of congress, approved APRIL 26, 1000.
In re application for enrolimeiit, as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, of
Marvin Marzen Hines, born on the 5th day of January. 1904. Name of father,
William N. Hines, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation; name of mother, Bessie
May Hines, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. Tribal enrollment of father,
. Tribal enrollment of mother .
Post office: Utica, Okla.
affidavit of mother.
United States of America,
State of Oklahoma, Bryan County:
I. Bessie May Hines (n^^e Whittle), on oath state that I am 26 years of age
and a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation; that I am the lawful wife of
William N. Hines, who is a citizen, by , of the Nation; that
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
426 FIVE CIVILIZED TMBBS IN OKLAHOMA,
a male child was born to me on the 5tb day of January, 1904 ; that said child
has been named Marvin Marzen Hlnes, and was living March 4, 1906.
Bessie May (heb X makk) Hiites.
Witnesses to marls:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of November, 1910.
[SEAL.] W. J. 0*Donley, yoiary Public,
My commission expires December 9, 1913.
affidavit of attending physician ob midwife.
United States of America,
State of Oklahoma, Bryan County:
I, Catherine Whittle, on oath state that I attended on Bessie May Hines,
wife of William N. Hines, on the 5th day of January, 1904; that there was
bom to her on said date a male child; that said child was living March 4,
4906, and Is said to have been named Marvin Marzen Hines.
(HEB X MABK) ,
Witnesses to mark:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of . 1906.
, Notary Public.
BiBTH AFFroAVIT.
Department of the Intebiob,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
ENBOLLMENT of minors, act of congress, approved APRIL 26, 1906.
In re application for enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of
Buford Hubbard Hines, bom on the 7th day of December, 1905. Name of
father, Noah Hines, a citizen of the Nation; name of mother, Llllie
Pearl Hines (n^ Whittle), a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. Tribal enroll-
ment of father , tribal enrollment of mother .
Post office: Utica, Okla.
affidavit of mother.
United States of America,
State of Oklahoma, Bryan County:
I, Lillle Pearl Hines, on oath state that I am 23 years of age and a citizen
by blood of the Choctaw Nation; that I am the lawful wife of Noah Hines,
who is a citizen, by , of the Nation; that a male child was bom
to me on 7th day of December, 1905; that said child has been named Buford
Hubbard Hines. and was living March 4, 1906.
iJLLiE Pearl Hines.
Witnesses to mark:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of November, 1910.
[SEAL.] Jessie Brannan, Notary Public,
affidavit of attending physician or MIDWU'E.
United States of America,
State of Oklahoma, Bryan County:
I, A. J. Wells, a physician, on oath state that I attended on Lillie Pearl
Hines, wife of Noah Hines, on the 7th day of December, 1905; that there was
bom to her on said date a male child: that said child was living March 4,
1906, and is said to have been named Buford Hubbard Hines.
A. J. Wells, M. D.
Witnesses to mark:
J. C. Wells,
W. E. Black.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1910,
W. L. Sceabce, Notary Public
My commission expires February 1, 1913.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVUIZBD TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 427
Eliza Jane Pearce et al.
The applicant in this case is a full cousin of Catherine and Sarah
^Vhittle referred to in the preceding record, and the facts as to her
application for enrollment and her residence in the nation are the
same as in the case of Catherine AVhittle. She and her minor chil-
dren should be enrolled. Their names are as follows: Eliza Jane
Pearce, Ira D. Pearce, William Herman Pearce, Bessie M. Pearce,
Hazel Pearce, and Roland R. Pearce.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
John T. Williams et al., Choctaws.
Commission, No. 230—1906.
June 20, 1906. John T. Williams appeared before the commission
at Muskogee and testified that he was 49 years of age; that he was
the son of Ambrose Williams (Indian name Mittucachee) and mem-
ber of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians in Mississippi; that claimant
was bom in the Choctaw Nation in 1856; that Ambrose Williams
was a Union soldier in the Civil War; that claimant did not know
the maiden name of his mother, who was a white woman, but her
first name was Sarah ; that his father and mother walked and carried
him to Mississippi when he was 8 months old; that his father
went into the Civil War and was killed ; that his mother took him
to Illinois during the war; that the whites would not pennit him to
attend school in Illinois; that when about 10 years old he ran away
from his mother and returned to the Choctaw Jfation; that he
roamed around through the country about Sherman, Tex., and in
the Choctaw Nation; that when about 15 years old he walked back
to Mississippi and lived there awhile, and in 1888 returned to the
Choctaw Nation where he stayed for a short time and then went to a
town located on the Arkansas-Oklahoma line; that said town was
Ultimathule, located partly in Arkansas and part in the Choctaw
Nation; that a part of the time he lived on tne Arkansas side of
the town and a part of the time on the Choctaw side of the town;
that in 1900 he left there and settled down in the town of Swink,
Okla., where he has since continuously resided. Claimant stated to
the commission that he had written numerous communications to the
commission to try and get himself and his children .enrolled. An
examination of the records of the commission failed to disclose any
application made by him prior to his appearance before the com-
mission on this 20th day of June, 1906; applicant then produced
letters from the commission dated in 1905 relative to his application
for enrollment; he stated that he had been applying for years, each
application being by letter: that one of his letters was sent to a man
by the name of Campbell in Washington (it appears that this man
Campbell was Frank Campbell, Assistant Attorney General of the
Department of the Interior, of whom the applicant had heard) ;
claimant further stated that he had relatives on the rolls and that
he had six children as follows: Willie Jesse Williams. Janie Vir-
ginia Williams, Leona Gertrude Williams, Johnie David Williams,
Nannie Chandler Williams, Jimmie Clarence Williams. ^^^T^
Digitized by VjOOQIC
428 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
October 15. 1906. The commission rendered a decision denying
claimant because his name did not appear upon any tribal roll. Orig-
inal copy sent to claimant hereto attached and marked " Exhibit A,"
Indorsed on the jacket of the case is the notation "records for-
warded department October 19, 1906," but it appears that no action
was ever taken by the department in the case.
The name of the alleged father of claimant appears as one of the
signers of the treaty of 1830.
Subsequently claimant wrote three letters to Washington, one ad-
dressed to the Attorney Greneral of the United States, one to the
Department of the Interior, and one to the Secretary insisting upon
his enrollment and stating that he was going to have his rights before
he quit, and " I am going to appeal to t&e Supreme Court of the
United States." To which communications the department replied.
(Original letter hereto attached and marked "Exhibit B.") Other
communications received from the department are hereto attached
and marked " Exhibits C and D."
It appears from the records that Charles Williams, son of George
Williams, applicant's father's half brother, is enrolled as a full-blood
Choctaw. Applicant's father was Ambrose Williams, a half-blood
Choctaw ; his rather was a full blood ; applicant's grandfather inter-
married with a white woman, who was the mother of Ambrose Wil-
liams, and subsequently intermarried with a full-blood Indian woman
who was the mother of George Williams, father of Charles Williams,
the full blood who is enrolled. His name appears opposite No. 3717,
final approved Choctaw roll, and the name of his son, James Wil-
liams, appears opposite No. 3718.
This case was investigated by J. W. Howell, assistant attorney in
the office of the Assistant Attorney Greneral of the Department of
the Interior, in* November, 1908. Applicant also appears before
Messrs. W. C. Pollock and George C. Reed on October 26, 1910, at
the office of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes at Mus-
kogee where he was examined by them. At this meeting he gave
them the name of his aunt, a full-blood Choctaw residing at Kutti-
tuklo, Choctaw Nation. His aunt is a full blood and was born and
raised in the Choctaw Nation but is not enrolled. Her name is Sopa
Williams.
Counsel for claimants respectfullj; submit that as John T. Wil-
liams, the principal claimant herein, is a child of Ambrose Williams,
a half-blood Choctaw, and signer of the treaty of 1830, and a Union
soldier who lost his life in the war, leaving claimant an orphan when
less than 6 years old; and as claimant was born in the Choctaw Na-
tion, Okla., and never had any permanent home outside of the na-
tion, and on June 28, 1898, was living in the town of Ultimathule.
wliich was part in the Choctaw Nation and part in Arkansas, where
claimant continued to reside until 1900 when he moved to Swink.
Choctaw Nation, where he has since resided; and as claimant made
numerous efforts to make application for himself and children to the
commission by writing letters to them, at that time being without
funds to employ a lawyer or anyone to represent him, that he and hi?
children are entitled to enrollnient as Choctaws bv blood.
Those thus entitled are: John T, Williams, Willie Jesse Williams,
Janie Virginia Williams, Leona Gertrude Williams, Johnnie David
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 429
Williams, Nannie Candler Williams, Jimmie Clarence Williams, and
his aunt Sopa Williams, a full-blood Choctaw who was born and
raised in the Choctaw Nation, Okla., and who has been living there
all her life, and who never applied to the commission for enrollment.
(Exhibits attached.)
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Exhibit A.
Department of the Interiob,
CJOMMISSIONER TO THE l^YE ClVILIZED TBIBES.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of John T. Williams et al.
as citizens by blood* of the Choctaw Nation.
It appears from the recoixi herein that application was duly made to the
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of John T. Wil-
liams and his six minor children, Willie Jesse, Janie Virginia, I..eona Gertrude,
Johnnie David, Nannie Candler, and Jimmie Clarence Williams, as citizens by
blood of the Choctaw Nation within the time limited by the provisions of the
act of Congress approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stats., 137).
The record in this case shows that John T. Williams was born about the year
1856, and is the son of Ambrose Williams, an alleged one-half blood Choctaw
Indian, and Sarah Williams, a noncitizen white woman; and that the minor
applicants herein are the children of said John T. Williams and E. C. Williams,
a noncitizen.
It does not appear from the record herein or from the records In the pos-
f^ession at this office that any of the applicants herein has ever been enrolled
by the Choctaw tribal authorities or admitted to Choctaw citizenship by a
duly constituted court or committee of the Choctaw Nation, or by the Commis-
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes, or by the United States court In Indian Terri-
tory, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896 (29
Stats., 321).
I am therefore of the opinion that the application made for the enrollment
of John T. Williams, Willie Jesse Williams, Janie Virginia Williams, I^ona
Gertrude Williams. Johnnie David Williams. Nannie Candler Williains, and
Jimmie Clarence Williams as cltizois by blood of the Choctaw Nation should
be denied, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 28, 1898
(30 Stats., 495), and It is so ordered.
Tams Bixby, Commissioner.
Muskogee, Ind. T., October 15, 1906.
(Father's name on treaty of 1830.)
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Loutltia Williams as a
citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
DECISION.
It appears from the record herein that on June 20, 1906, application was
made to the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of
Loutitia Williams as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation under the pro-
visions of the act of Congress approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stats., 137).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
430
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The record in this case shows that the applicant, Ix)utltia Williams, was
born on April 29, 1905, and Is the dauf?hter of John T. Williams, an applicant
for enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and whose appli-
cation for enrollment as such has heretofore been denied by the Commissioner
TO the Five Civilized Tribes, and E. C. Williams, a noncitizen.
I am therefore of the opinion that Loutitia Williams is not entitled to enroll-
ment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation and that her application for
enrollment as such should be denied, under the provisions of section 2 of the act
Congress approved April 26, 1906 (34 Stats., 137), and it is so ordered.
Tams Bixby, Commissioner.
Muskogee, Ind. T., October 17, 1906.
Exhibit B.
Depabtmeitt of the Intebiob,
Office of Indian Affaibs,
JVashington. May .J, 1907.
John T. Williams. Esq., Sicink\ Ind. T.
Sib : The office is In receipt of three letters written by you, one addressed to
the Attorney General of the United Stages, one to the Department of the In-
terior, and one to this office, relative to your enrollment as a citizen of the
Choctaw Nation, and saying that you are going to have your rights as a citizen
before you quit, and that you are going to appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States.
In reply, the office can only repeat what it has told you heretofore, that it
has no jurisdiction to consider any citizenship matter since the 4th of March.
1907, and that there is now no authority of law for placing the name of any
person on any of the rolls of the Five Civilized Tribes In the Indian Territory.
There was no question in your case as to your Indian blood, and It was no-
denied by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes that you were a person
of Indian blood. However, the possession of Indian blood was not enough,
under the law, to justify your enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation.
There are many persons of Indian blood who are not entitled to enrollment as
citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes In the Indian Territory.
The office has no reason to object to your appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States, If you so desire.
Very respectfully, C. F. Larrabee,
Acting Commissioner.
Exhibit C.
Depabtment of the Intebiob,
Commissioneb to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Muskogee, Ind. T.. October 2^, 1906.
John T. Williams, Sirink, Ind. T.
Deab Sib : Receipt Is hereby acknowledged of your letter of October 15. 1906.
relative to your citizenship In the Choctaw Nation.
In reply to your letter, you are advised that on October 15. 1906, the Commis-
sioner to the Five Civilized Tribes rendered his decision refusing the applica-
tion for the enrollment of yourself and your children. Willie J., Jannie Virginia.
Leona Gertrude. Johnnie David. Nannie Chandler, and Jimmle Clarence Wil-
liams as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and on October 17, 1906.
decision was rendered refusing the application for the enrollment of your
child; Loutitia Williams, as a minor citizen of the Choctaw Nation under the
act of Congress approved April 26. 1906, and October 19. 1906, the record in
this case, together with his decision, was forwarded the Secretary of the
Interior. You will be notified of the action taken therein by the department.
Respectfully,
Tams Bixby, Commissioner.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES- IN OKLAHOMA. 431
Exhibit D.
Department of the Interior,
OmcE OF Indian Affairs,
Washington, yovemher 20, 1909.
Mr. John T. Williams, Valliant, Okla,
Sir: Tour letter, dated November 11, 1909, regarding a controversy over
certain land which you have been occupying, has been received by departmental
reference.
As you do not give a description of the land in question, the office Is unable
to locate it Your letter has been forwarded to J. George Wright, Esq.. Com-
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes. Muskogee, Okla., who will give it such
attention as may be required.
Very respectfully, Wm. R. Layne,
Acting Chief Land Division,
(Letter of John T. Williams and carbon copy to Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes.)
Agnes O. Mallory et al.
Application for enrollment as Choctaws by blood.
September 8, 189C. Application submitted to commission, alleg-
ing that claimant was a daughter of Agnes Foster, who was a
daughter of Jesse TumbuU, a full-blood Choctaw Indian; that
claimant was born in Mississippi, reared there, and came to and
settled in the Choctaw Nation in 1894, in which year claimant ap-
plied to the Choctaw Council for enrollment, but no action was taken.
(See affidavit hereto attached explaining failure of council to
act.) In 1895 claimants removed to Chickasaw Nation and settled
near Comanche, where they have since resided. Anthony, Robert,
and William TurnbuU. her brothers, and Gilbert Trahern, her half
brother, removed to tne Choctaw Nation, and they and their de-
scendants have always been recognized as citizens of said Nation.
Said application is supported by the affidavits of Louis Trahern,
her nephew, and an enrolled Choctaw, Rebecca Trahern, F. A*
Reynolds, Thomas Ford, Mrs. A. A. Lombard, and F. L. Reynolds,
all corroborative of the allegations contained in the petition. Mrs.
Mallory is first cousin of Felicity L. Reynolds, whose namfe ap-
pears on the finally approved (jhoctaw blood roll opposite No.
14319; Mrs. Mallory's mother being Agnes Tumbull and Mrs.
Reynolds's father was Robert TurnbuU, brother of Agnes. That the
children of Felicity L. Reynolds appear on the final roll of the
Choctaws as follows: James T. Reynolds, roll No. 14320; Hugh A.
Reynolds, roll No. 14322; Alta G. ftevnolds, roll No. 14323; Felicity
L. Reynolds, jr., roll No. 14324; Earl V. Reynolds, roll No. 14325;
William Jackson Reynolds, roll No. 15831.
On pa^e 94, vol. 7, American State papers, public lands, under
the heading " Names of Indians owning larms," and prepared by
the United States authorities pursuant to the supplementary articles
of the treaty of 1830, appears the name of Samuel Foster, father of
claimant A. O. Mallory, with the notation, " Number of acres culti-
vated, 40; entire number of family, 6; males over 10 years of age, 1;
males and females under 10 years, 3 ; 12 slaves ; total number of acres,
960; provided for in supplement." Answer was filed by nations, and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
432 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
the record shows application '' denied," no finding or decision ap-
pearing in record oi case.
1897-8. On February 22, 1897, an appeal was perfected to the
United States Court, Southern District, Indian Territory. Addi-
tional evidence was offered by claimants, together with the records
before the commission. No evidence offered by nations.
A decree was entered admitting the following persons : Mrs. A. O.
Mallory, Mrs. Cassie Prichard, Booker Mitchell Prichard, Jessie
Prichard, S. F. Sanders, Bessie Octavia Sanders, Drucilla Sanders,
Eva Sanders, Claude Sanders. Ella Sanders. (Certified copy of
decree hereto attached, marked " Exhibit A.")
March 23, 1903. Case transferred to the citizenship court.
November 28, 1904. Decree was entered decreeing claimants not
citizens of the Choctaw Nation. The decree was entered in accord-
ance with a decision of the citizenship court in which the Choctaw
blood and descent of all the claimants is admitted from scripees
under the treaty of 1830, but it is held that their removal in 1894
was too late to entitle them to enrollment ; that their rights became
extinct bv their failure to remove within a reasonable time after the
treaty of 1830.
The holding of the citizenship court on this point was diametric-
ally opposite to the holding of the United States courts in the
central and southern districts of the Indian Territory. (Jack Amos
et al., Am. Rep, Con. Ind. Af., 1898, p, 459; E. J, Home, id., p. 465;
general summary, id., 475.)
The holding of the citizenship court in this case was repudiated
by the Assistant Attorney General for the department in an elaborate
opinion rendered February 19, 1906, in the leading case of James S.
Long et al., wherein, after citing the decisions of the United States
courts on this point, the Attorney (Jeneral says :
On the other hand is the case of Mrs. A. O. MaUory et al., November 28, 1904,
wherein a Choctaw born in 1848 in Misgissippi, Uving there until 1894, removed
to the nation and thereafter resided therein. The Choctaw-Chickasaw citizen-
ship court held that the treaty of 1830 imposed an obligation to remove from the
State upon all who did not claim benefit of the fourteenth article, and that such
removal must have been " within a reasonable time.'* What was a reasonable
time was not defined, but it was held that removal in 1894 was not within a
reasonable time, and enrollment was denied. Judicial constructions are thus
at variance, and of the two the first appears the better reason and supported
by the historic facts.
There was no law of Congress requiring settlement in the nations
prior to June 28, 1898. and this was four years after claimants
removed.
List of claimants adjudged citizens of the Choctaw Nation by
United States court, and children bom to them prior to March 4,
1906; Mrs. A. O. Mallory, Mrs. Cassie Prichard, Booker Mitchell
Prichard, Jessie Prichard, S. F. Sanders, Bessie Octavio Sanders.
Drucilla Sanders, Eva Sanders, Claude Sanders, Ella Sanders, Ruth
Sanders, Lucila Sanders, Jesse H. Sanders.
Respectfully submitted.
Baixinger & Lee,
Attorneys for Claimants.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 433
transcript of proceedings.
United States Covet,
Indian Territory, Southern District, 88 :
At a stated term of the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Southern
District begun and had in the court rooms at Ardniore. in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-seven.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend. Judge of snld court.
On the 20th day of January. 1898, l>eing a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit: Mrs. A. O. Mallory
V. Choctaw Nation.
On this the 20th day of January, 1898, came regularly on to be heard the
above-entitled cause on the application, evidence, exhibits, master's report,
exceptions to the master's report, and the entire record in the cause; and the
court having heard the evidence and being well and truly advised in the
premises, finds that Mrs. Cassie Prlchard. Mrs. A. O. Mallory, Booker Mitchell
Prichard, Jessie Prichard, S. E. Saunders, Bessie Octavlo Saunders, Drucilla
Saunders, Eva Saunders, Claude Saunders, and Ella Saunders are all Choctaw
Indians by blood and are entitled to be enrolled as such.
And that Mrs. Fannie Saunders is entitled to be enrolled as a member of the
Choctaw Tribe of Indians by intermarriage with S. F. Saunders.
It Is therefore by the court considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that
the above-named applicants, to wit : Mrs. A. O. Mallory, Mrs. Cassie Prichard,
Booker Mitchell Prichard, Jessie Prichard, S. F. Saunders, Mrs. Fannie Saun-
ders, Bessie Octavio Saunders, •Drucilla Saunders, Eva Saunders, Claude Saun-
ders, and Ella Saunders be, and they are hereby, admitted and enrolled as
members of the Choctaw Nation and as members of the Choctaw Tribe of
Indians, with all the rights, privileges, and immunities pertaining to such
relation.
It is further ordered that the clerk of this court certify a true copy of this
decree to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and that such commission
enroll the above-named parties as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
Hosea Townsend, Judge,
United States Court,
Indian Territory, Southcfyt' Di8irict, 88:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court Journals of said court as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore, this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
By , Deputy,
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, apd Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of the order of the court, dated January 20, 1898, in the case of Mrs. A. O.
Mallory et al. v. The Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
ComnU88ioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in charge of Choctaw records.
ST4TB OF Oklahoma, Stephens Coimty, ss:
I^ersonally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Samuel F. Saun-
ders, and his jnother, Agnes O. Mallory, to me personally known, and upon
their oaths state:
That they are the identical persons who applied to the Commission to the
Flv« Civilized Tribes on September 8, 1896, for enrollment as Chdctaws, and
are the identical persoQS mentioned in the decree of the United States Courst,
Southern District, Indian Territory, sitting at Ardmore, and entered on the 20th
60282—13 ^28
Digitized by V^OOQIC
434 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
day of May, 1898; that upon their removal from Mississippi in 1894 afDants
applied in person, during the month of September, to the Choctaw Council, sit-
ting at Tuskahoma, Choctaw Nation, for recognition as members of the Choc-
taw Nation, of themselves and their families, including all those persons men-
tioned in said court judgment; that simultaneously application was made for
the admission of Louis Trahem, son of Gilbert Trahern, who was half brother
of affiant Agnes O. Mallory, and his mother, Agnes TurnbuU, being the mother
of affiant Agnes O. Mallory, and from whom affiants derived their Choctaw
blood; that there were a large number of similar applications pending before
the council, and that the council continued in session until the aiqpropriatioii
for the payment of the salaries of the members of the council was exhausted;
that on the last day the council was In session the application of Louis Tra-
hem was favorably acted upon, and he was duly admitted as a member of the
Choctaw Tribe; that Immediately thereafter the council adjourned, and before
reaching the next case on the list, which was the case of affiants; that when
the council met the following year, 3895, affiants were notified to appear and
present their evidence; that when this notice was received affiant Samuel F.
Saunders, who was attending to the matter for his family and his mother's
family, was seriously 111, and was advised by his physician that his health
would not permit his going to Tuskahoma; that the attending physician made
affidavit to the above fact, which was transmitted to the Choctaw Council ; that
no action was taken on the application of affiants at that session of the coun-
cil; that in 1896 the Dawes Commission was created, and affiants were ad-
vised by their then attorneys, Potter & Thomas, of Ardmore, Ind, T., that
the Dawes Commission then had jurisdiction of their case, and that the Choc-
taw Council no longer had authority to admit affiants; that following the ad-
vice of their attorneys they applied to the Dawes Conmilssion for enrollment
Affiants further state that from the time of their arrival In the Choctaw
Nation In 1894 they were recognized by the Choctaws as members of the tribe;
that they bought Improvements from Indians, owned, Improved, and cultivated
farms, and that their rights so to do was never questioned by the Choctaw or
Chickasaw authorities ; that affiants purchased Improvements In the Chickasaw
Nation In 1895 of the value of more than $6,000, purchasing said Improvements
from one Jim Weaver, a recognized and enrolled Chickasaw Indian ; that they
continued In peaceable and undisturbed possession of said property until after
the decree of the citizenship court on November 28, 1904; that thereafter at-
tempts were made to dispossess affiants; that these attempts were resisted in
the courts, and that affiants are to-day in possession of part of said property.
Affiants further state that the father of affiant A. O. Mallory, Samuel Fiouster,
was a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians In 1830, and was one of the
reservees under the treaty of that year; that he is the identical person men-
tion on page 94, volume 7, American State Papers, Public Lands; that he had
four children — one boy and three girls of whom affiant A. O. Mallory was one
of said girls.
AoNEs O. Mallory.
Samuel F. Saunders.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of October, 1910.
[SEAL.] John T. Ghelp,
Notary Puhlic
My commission expiree January 26, 1911.
Lizzie Henry, Choctaw.
BECOBD.
August, 1899. Applied at Durant, Ind. T., before CkMnmissioner
McKennon, and there stated that she was one-half Choctaw, bom
in the nation, and had resided there all her life ; that her father was
Tom Holden, a full blood; that she knew nothing about getting en-
rolled; that her father died when she was 10 years old, and her
^ mother when ^e was 12 years old. Above facts unccmtradicted in
' record.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 435
Commissioner McKeniKMi stated :
This case of yours seems to be all right. You seem to be born a citizen, and
by misfortune left off. The commission will call the special attention of the
Secretary of the Interior to your case.
Under above application claimants entitled to enrollment under
decision in Long case.
^ October 9, 1901. No decision having been rendered by commis-
sion on pending application, claimant applied for enrollment as
fourteenth article, Mississippi Choctaw.
June 25, 1902, and June 28, 1902. Hearings had at which it was
shown that father of principal applicant was a fuU-blood Choctaw,
that he had a brother. Jack Holden, and that applicant's grandparents
lived in the Choctaw Nation, Mississippi.
October 15, 1902. Decision of commission denying applicants' en-
rollment as Mississippi Choctaws, and further holding that they had
not been enrolled or recognized by the tribal authorities, as required
of all applicants applying after act of May 31, 1900.
October 31, 1902. Decision of commission denying claimants en-
rollment as Mississippi Choctaws, approved by department.
John Holden, brother of Lizzie Henry, was enrolled by the com-
mission, and his name appears on the final Chickasaw blood roll
opposite No. 3932, as a Chickasaw, 68 years of age.
No decision by commission or department on application of Aug-
ust, 1899, nor any record of any report of said case to Secretary, as
stated would be done by Commissioner McKennon at the examina-
tion of claimant, is of record. Claimants were clearly entitled to
enrollment under act of June 28, 1898.
The following persons, for whose enrollment application was duly
made, counsel lor claimants submit are clearly entitled to enroll-
ment: Lizzie Henry, Mary Henry (daughter of Lizzie Henry),
Myrtle E. Epps (child of Mary Henry by first husband), Emma E.
Epps (child OT Mary Henry by first husband), and Tommey F.Henry
(son of Mary Henry by present husband).
Additional testimony taken by Judge Pollock for the department
December 6, 1910, copy of which is atUched.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinqer & Lee, .
Attorneys for Claimants.
Department of the Intebiob.
Muskogee, Okla., December 6, 1910.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of lizzie Henry as a citizen
by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
Proceedings had at Ardmore, Okla., November 12, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney, Interior Department.
Appearances: Albert J. Lee for Ballinger & T^ee, attorneys for claimant:
A. W. Clapp for Rodgers & Clapp, attorneys for the Chickasaw Nation.
Elizabeth Jane Henry, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified
as follows:
By Mr. Lkb:
Q. State your name. — A. EHlzabeth Jane Henry.
Q. How old are you?— lA. I am going on 51. I was 60 the 22d day of this
gone October. c^c^n\o
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
436 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Where do you live? — ^A. Near Brock; little northwest of Brock.
Q. Oklahoma?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you ever before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or any
of Its officers? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the first time you were before them? — ^A. Yes. sir.
Q. Do you remember about what year that was? — ^A. I don't know, sir; I
don't believe I remember the year. I have been sick so much I can't remember
dates, and I have no education either.
Q. Do you remember where it was the first time you appeared before them? —
A. I b«iieve it was here at Ardmore, in a park.
Q. Do you remember the name of the commis^oner you a|^>eared before? —
A. I can think of his name sometimes and other times I can't. My grand-
datighter there will tell you that.
Q. Do you know whether it was Commissioner Bixby or whether it was
McKennon or any of the other commissioners? Could you tell their names if
1 called it, which one it was? — \. Let me see — I might if you would call it;
I can't place the names, it's been so long ago.
Q. Can you remember anything about what was told you at the time by the
commissioner? — A. Yes, sir; I think I can.
Mr. Clapp. Doesn't the records show this?
Mr. Lee. I Just asked that as a means of identification.
A. There was one told me that I was Indian all right, and that I ought t>
have been put on the roll long ago, and that he would refer my case to the
Secretary or something similar to that.
Q. Have you any relatives that are now on the rolls? — ^A. Yes, air.
Q. State their names, please. — ^A. James Underwood Is one; he's dead; and
then
Q. What relation was he to you?^A. My father's nephew; he's my cousin,
Q. And who else? — ^A. His son, Wilson Underwood, and then Alemon Holden,
another nephew, nil blood Choctaws; and then there's Annus Holden.
Q. What relation is he?— A. Oousln.
Q. Is he a full-blood, too?— A. All my folks fuU-blood, too. My father and
mother died and I was just kicked about, and when first one and another
talked to me they said get a lawyer, and I tried to get a lawyer, and one would
do a while one way and some another, and I went to Atoka, and Mu^ogee
twice, and here to the park; to Durant once, and just everyAvhei-e, and I can't
remember all they told me.
Q. Have you any other relation on the rolls?— A. Yes; he has two half
brothers.
Q. What are their names?— A. I disremember; I believe their names are Joe
and Dave; but, anyhow, it's Flincher.
Q. Joe and Dave Flincher?— A. Yes. sir; I think that's their given names;
it's Flincher, anyhow.
Q. Are there any other relatives that you remember now that are on me
roll?— A. These are old ones I am giving; there's lots of. them, 25 or 40, from
20 years old down, that's on.
Q. Do you remember your father and mother? — A. Yes, sir; I remember
them.
Q. Where did your father live?— A. Up on Blue, toward these mountains.
Q. Kiamlchi Mountains?— A. Yes, air; when I was about 4 years old, and
then he moved down on the river somewhere not very far from where Courin
John and Jack Holden lived-
Q. Are they on the rolls?— A. Yes, sir; John's dead, but I think Jack is
living; he's up In the Choctaw Nation.
Q. They are cousins of yours?— A. Yes, sir; father's nephews.
Q. Any others that are on the polls?— A. Not of the old ones, but the.-e is
40 younger heads.
By Mr. Clapp:
0. Can you give us your father's name?— A. Thomas Holden, and his Indian
name was lyaketubby; the best I remember that's what it is. . ii •
Q. Now, what was your mother's name?— A. Angellne Comogg; she was a
German woman. , ^ . , « . ^t _, ^i. 4»^,.
Q. Did you know the name of your father's father?— A. No, sir; not lor
certain ; I believe it was Jim ; I wouldn't be positive that Jim was his name,
but I believe it was. ^ ^, . * ^ .. i. ^ r^^
Q. Do you remember your grandfather?— A. No, sir; I xlon't remember W
grandfather. I remember my grandmother— pappj's^.^ig^t^^^l^fel^ just ^
re-
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 437
member as a dream. I could describe her. She was tolerably tall, with high
cheek bones and long hair down* her back, and looked like these Mississippi
Choc taws.
Q. Do you remember what her name was?— A. I believe it was Sallie; I
might be mistaken ; I wouldn't be positire. I remember sitting on her lap and
her combing my head.
Q. Were you bom in Mississippi? — A. I was born here.
Q. Did your grandfather and grandmother move out here? — A. Yes, sir;
when the Indians was drove out here.
Q. Your father was bom here? — ^A. I dont' Imow whether he was or not,
but I know his folks came here when they was brought to this wild country
there.
Q. You stated they were Choctaw and Chickasaw?— A. Choctaw and Chicka-
saw both, but they claimed the Chickasaw side.
Q. How old were you when your father died? — ^A. I was somewhere about
10 years old.
Q. And how old were you when your mother died? — ^A. She died the 15th of
March, and I would be 13 in the following October.
Q. That was about 38 years ago? — ^A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Who did you live with after they died? — A. Jim Rutledge, an old negro
overseer, but I don't know where he is from Adam's house cat; 1 guess he'p
dead.
Q. Where did he live then? — A. On the Red River below liCbanou, and I
have be«i right around the Chickasaw part ever since.
Q. How long did you live with him? — A. I guess I was about 17 when I
married.
Q. Did you live with him until you were married? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your husband^s name? — A. Moore.
Q. Moore Henry? — A. John Moore, my daughter's father, and these are
her children, but I have married again, you know, since that; my ifHme is
Henry now.
' Q. Was Moore a white man? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Henry is a white man? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, can you remember the year In which you were first married? —
A- No, sir ; I can't.
Q. You think you were 17 years old? — A. Yes, sir; about 17.
Q. So that your name — how long did Moore live? — A. Six years.
Q. And you lived with him all that time? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Do you remember a payment l>eing made In 1878. about 32 years ago, to
the Indians? — A. Thirty-two years ago? I^et me see. No; I doift remember it.
Q. Did you ever draw any payment? — ^A. No, sir; the first payment that ever
I remember anything about it — that I got enlightened into anything of that
kind — was the time they drew the $130 when the Dawes Commission went
tiirough Thackervllle ; that's the first I knew anything about It.
Q. About 17 years ago? — A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. Well, did you try to get a part of that payment? — ^A. No, sir; I didn't go
and try to get part of the payment, but I met the Dawes Commission at
Thackervllle.
Q. Well, do you remember a payment made In 18d3? — A. I remember several
imsrments that have been paid
Q. Paid to the Indians? — A. Through the Government?
Q. Yes; since that $130. — A. I remember several being paid since. $40 to the
head of late.
Q. Can you tell us where you have lived since you were first married and
since you first left Jim Rutledge? — ^A. Yes. sir; I have been all over the Chicka*
aaw part of the Territory and right smart time around Roff, and when he
aied I was at Tyler, Tex. ; my first man he went out there and got a job there
and died there.
Q. How long did you live In Texas? — A. Maybe about three or four months.
Q. Then you came back here? — A. Yes. sir; he got hurt; he went there
to get a Job. and he got hurt and died, and as soon as he was put away I
came back.
Q. Is that the only time you have lived outside of the Chickasaw Nation? —
A. Except going to Gainesville and back on trips.
Q. You never did live in Texas? — A. No, sir; and it is all the State outside
of the Territory I was ever in.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
438 FIVE CrVTLIZBD TRIBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. You have lived around among the Chickasaw Indians, have you not?—
A. Yes, sir ; all the time in the Chickasaw part, except a year I lived close to
Roff.
Q. Have you ever been well acquainted with any prominent men In the
Chickasaw Nation?— A« No, sir; only just meeting these people and going
back home.
Q. Did you ever talk with any of the Indians around where you lived about
your Indian blood?— A. Yes, sir; I asked them about the Indian affairs what
I would know to ask them, and then I would get a lawyer to see If he could
do anything.
Q. Did you ever get a lawyer before you appeared before the Dawes Com-
mission?— ^A. No, sir.
Q. You never made any attempt to get before the Council of the Chickasaw
Nation? — A. I went before the commission.
Q. But you never went before the tribal authorities of the Chickasaw Na-
tion?— A. No, sir; I reckon not; I don't know. I have met them around and
around and had I don't know how many lawyers. I had one at Muskogee
and one at Atoka and two or three here and at Tishomingo.
Q. I am asking you about things before that. — ^A. I tried them to get me
a right, but I couldn't do it.
Q. Now what relation was Jack Holden to your father? — ^A. He was a
brother; and John, Alemon, and Armus, these others, are all his nephews.
Q. Jack was a brother? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he a full brother or half brother? — A. Full brother, and these other
two they are half brothers — these Fllnchers was half brothers.
Q. Jack Holden; your father's brother, is he on the roll? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he living now? — A. I don't know; he moved away up in the Choctaw
Nation, and I had his address to write and see if he was still living, but J
lost it.
Q. Which roll Is he on?— A. Chickasaw, I think.
Q. You said that your parents or grandparents, your father or your grand-
parents, claimed to be either Choctaw or Chickasaw blood, that they had both
blood? — ^A. They have both blood; they claim the Chickasaw side. I know
the majority part of them was filed at Tishomingo at the land office there.
Q. Can you remember your parents or grandparents drawing money? — ^A.
No, sir ; I don't recollect nothing about them drawing money.
Q. Did you ever see very much* of these relatives of yours? — ^A. Yea, sir;
I go amongst them every once in a while.
Q. Say 20 years ago, did you use to see them? — ^A. Yes, sir; I was with them
about that time.
Q. Well, they were always recognized members?— A. Yes, sir, always
recognized.
Q. Why didn't it occur to you to try to he recognized yourself? — ^A. Well,
I thought I was recognized the same as they was, Indian and full-bloods, and
whenever they held offices and run around and get money and do this and that,
and I didn't have sense enough to get any.
Q. Did you talk to them about getting money?— A. Well, they said you better
get a lawyer and have him to see what's the reason you can't get this. I went
and held one of papa's nieces' baby on the steps of the building at Tisho-
mingo while she went up and drawed her money.
Q. Within the last 10 years?— A. Yes, sir; about 10 years ago.
Q. That was townsite money?— A. I don't know; I didn't get It; I have
always been Indian.
Q. These relatives know about your parentage?— A. Yes, sir. I got a letter
here some time ago from an old gentleman — an Indian named Kemp; liveB
southeast of Tishomingo— telling me they were working at Muskogee, and I
had better go up there and see something about my affair, or the first thing I
wouldn't have anything; and I taken the letter and sent It to Mr. Lee.
Y^l^npao PXCUSed
Albert G. McMillan, being first duly sworn, states that he reported the pro-
ceedings had In the above-entitled cause, and that 'the foregoing Is a true
and correct transcript of his stenographic notes.
Albebt O. McMilulk.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of December, 1910.
[SKAL.1 HaBBY MONTAQUK,
Notary Public
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 439
Sallie Berryman et al., Choctaw.
Commission No. R-131.
This case was investigated in 1908 by J. W. Howell, an attorney
in the office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of
the Interior, who recommended the enrollment of claimants in his
report of that year.
On October 18, 1910, Sallie Berryman personally appeared before
W. C. Pollock and George Reed, representing the Secretary and
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, respectively, and was examined
by them.
RECOBD.
August, 1899. Appeared before Commissioner McKennon at
Atoka, and testified that she was not on the rolls of the Choctaw
Nation; that she twice applied to the Choctaw Council, but that
they demanded $100 before they would hear her case; that she did
not have the money, and was not enrolled; that she did not apply
to the comhiission in 1896; that her mother was a full-blood (jhoc-
taw and her father was three-quarter Choctaw; that she left Mis-
sissippi when about 7 or 8 years of a^, and went to Arkansas, and
had at times lived in Texas and Louisiana, and came to the Choc-
taw Nation, Indian Territory, in October, 1888.
Was examined by Shackleford, attorney for Choctaw Nation, and
Lewis, commissioner for Choctaw Nation, as to whether she had
negro blood; she stated she had no negro blood. At the close of
the hearing Commissioner McKennon stated:
Your enrollment will be refused; we have no authority to put you on the
roll.
On page 206 of the Record of the Committee on Citiz^iship of
the ChocUw Nation appears the following :
Case No. 16. Sallie Berryman, claiming citizenship. Piled In this ofBce
for further consideration this November 11, 1897, at the regular term of the
General Council.
Robert Benton,
Chairman of the Committee on Citizenship,
June 9, 1900. Appeared before Commissioner Bixby at Atoka,
and testified that her father's name was Neal Campbell, a three-
quarter-blood Choctaw; that her mother, Lucy Anderson, was a
full blood ; that she claimed as a Mississippi Choctaw under the
treaty of 1830, but did not know imder which article, but that her
parents received land in Mississippi under the treaty, and that she
was born in Mississippi on the land received by her parents from
the Government. At the conclusion of this hearing Commissioner
Bixby stated :
In the event the commission denies the application of yourself or any of the
members of your family to admission as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, you
will be so advised in writing.
January 22, 1901. Decision of the commission refusing enroll-
ment as citizens by blood, on the ground that "the names of the
Digitized by VjOOQIC
440 FIVE CIVIUZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
applicant and her above-named children and grandchildren have
never been on the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation, and it does
not appear that applicant and her said children and grandchildren
have been admitted to citizenship by the tribal authorities of said
nation," and on the further ground that they had not been admitted
by the commission in 1896, or the United States court.
Affidavits filed, showing applicants descended from Calvin Camp-
bell and Alabacha, a full-blood Choctaw, and from Samuel Ander-
son, a full blood.
•February 12, 1903. Decision refusing applicants enrollment as
Mississippi Choctaws. It is therein stated that the name of Calvin
Campbell appears on page 111, volume 7, American State Papers,
and that the name of Samuel Anderson appears on pages 40 and 127
of said record, said citations being to claims under the treaty of 1830;
that the name of Alabacha appears on page 18, volume 1, claimant's
brief and evidence in case of Choctaw Nation v. United States, No.
12742, as a woman and the mother of two children under 10 years
of age. The commission then holds that —
it does not appear from the testimony subDiitted by the applicants that the
persons through whom they claim, who bear similar names to the one» men-
tioned In the citations from this record, are Identical with the persons men-
tioned therein;
and also that the evidence did not show that the persons throu^
whom applicants claimed ever signified to the Indian agent their
intention to comply with article 14 of the treaty, and that therefore
the evidence was insufficient to identify the applicants as Mississippi
Choctaws.
January 12, 1907. Decision of Commissioner of Indian Affairs
holds "that applicants have failed to establish satisfactorily their
descent from a beneficiary under the fourteenth article of the Choctaw
treaty of 1830."
February 13, 1907. Secretary of the Interior confirms the de-
cision of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
The record does not disclose the appearance of Mansfield, McMur-
ray & Cornish in this case, nor does the record disclose any testimony
taken in behalf of the nations.
It does not appear from the record that the decision of the com-
missioner of January 22, 1901, refusing enrollment as citizens by
blood was transmitted to the department, and the action of the
Secretary was solely upon the record of the claimants j^s Mississippi
Choctaws.
Affidavit of Sallie Berryman hereto attached.
The following claimants are entitled to enrollment : Sallie Berry-
man, Margie Berryman (daughter), Maud Berryman (daughter),
Joe Berryman (son), Cornne Berryman (daughter), John Berryman
(grandson, son of Albert B., dead), Francis Berryman (son), Ilobert
Berryman (son), Eldridge Berryman (grandson, son of Kobert),
Elmina Berryman (granddaughter, daughter of Robert), Monroe
Berryman (grandson, son of Robert), Australia Rogers (nfe Berry-
man), Essie Rogers, Oceola Rogers, OUie Rogers, and Ethel Rogers,
all by blood.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Leb.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 441
State of Oklahoma,
Muskogee County, ss:
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Sallle Berryman,
to me well known, who upon her oath states :
That she was bom about the year 1M4 In the old Choctaw Nation, Miss.;
that her parents died, she was informed, when she was about 7 years of age,
and that she was taken by a family of white people by the name of Sours to
Arkansas and thence to Texas, where she remaibed until she was married to
Milton Berrj-man in 1863; that in 1888 she and her husband and their children
removed to and settled in the Choctaw Nation, where they have since continu-
ously resided; that they have held land the same as other recognized and en-
rolled Choctaws; that she is seven-eighths Choctaw blood, her mother, Lucy
Campbell, n^ Anderson, being a full-blood Choctaw, and her father, Neil Camp-
bell, being three-quarters blood.
Affiant further states that as a result of her marriage to Milton Berryman
there was born to them the following children, who are now and have been
continuously since 1888, or since their birth, residents of the Choctaw Nation :
Robert Berryman, Francis Berryman, Australia Rogers (n^t Berryman),
Margie Berryman, Maud Berr>'nian. Joe Berryman, and Corrlne Berryman^
that Australia Rogers (n^ Berryman), her daughter, lawfully intermarried
with Alf Rogers, and as a result of said union they have the following children :
E88i« Rogers, Oceola Rogers, Olllt Rogers, and Ethel Rogers; that Albert Berry-
man, her son, was lawfully intermarried with Dulcie Erbie, by whom he had
one son, John Berryman; that Robert Berryman lawfully intermarried wltU
Rosle Erble, and as a result of said union they have the following children :
EiMrldge, Monroe, and Elmina Berryman. Affiant further states that all of the
above children were bom prior to Febmary 15, 1905.
her
Sallie X Berryman.
mark
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of October, 1910.
(seal.] Etna A. Murphy, yotary Public.
Commission expires December 12, 1911.
Witnesses to mark:
Etna A. Mubphy,
W. E. R0\f SET.
Victoria Boyd et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 897—1896. Commission, No. 205—1900.
Note. — This case is referred to in the report of J. W. Howell,
covering his investigation of enrollment matters in the Choctaw-
Ohickasaw Nations, and submitted to the Secretary of the Interior
March 3, 1909.
These claimants appeared before W. C. Pollock, representing the
Secretary of the Interior, at the office of the commission at Musko-
gee, October 31, 1900, and were examined by him, and their case i?
covered in his report to the Secretary, submitted -^ 1910.
RECOBD.
The record shows that Victorial Boyd, in 1900, was about 30
years of age, that she did not know her exact age; that she is a
daughter of Jimpsimime Dyer, a full blood Choctaw woman; that
her grandmother^s name was Nellie Dyer, a full blood; that Vic-
toria Boyd was born in Arkansas, moved to Texas with her parents,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
442 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
and remained there until some time in 1895 or 1896, when she, with
her husband and their children, moved to and settled in the Choctaw
Nation near Colgate, where they remained about four years and then
moved to Johnstown, Chickasaw Nation; that they have since con-
tinuously resided in the Chickasaw Nation; she alleged that during
the month of October, 1896, she went to Tuskahoma, Choctaw Nation,
for the purpose of applying to the Choctaw Council for admission to
citizenship in the nation, and was informed by Green McCurtain
" that the Choctaw law required her to pay $100 per capita in advance
before her case would be considered oy their committee; that she
was a poor person and unable to comply with this law."
During claimant's examination, June 12, 1900, by the commission
at Colbert^ Ind. T., the commissioner dictated the following statement
for inclusion in the record : " By the commissioner : This woman has
the looks of being at least a half breed Indian." (Note by counsel
and not in record:) Victoria Boyd is very i^oranl; resembles a
full blood, as do all her children. Her name is not on any roll of
the tribe.
September 7, 1896. Washington B. Boyd applied to the commis-
sion, under the act of June 10, 1896. for tne admission of himself as
an intermarried citizen, and his wiie and children, as follows: Vic-
toria Boyd, William B. Glover, Dollie Glover, Georgie B. Boyd, as
citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
December 4, 1896. Commission denied said application. No
appeal.
August 28, 1899. Victoria Boyd appeared before the ccMnmission
at Atoka, and applied for the enrollment of herself and her minor
children, Willie Glover, Dollie Glover, Georgie Boyd, Lence Boyd, as
citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
August 28, 1900. Commission rendered its decision denying said
claimants enrollment, and the record was forwarded to the depart-
ment.
July 7, 1901. The case was remanded to the commission for fur-
ther hearing.
June 12, 1900. Applicant appeared before the commission at Col-
bert, Ind. T., and made application for the enrollment of herself
and minor children as Mississippi Choctaws, claiming rights under
article 14 of the treaty of 1830. No further action was taken by the
commission on the application of August 28, 1899, when applicants
applied to the commission for enrollment under the provisions of the
act of June 28, 1898, as citizens of the Choctaw Nation by blood.
April 21, 1903. The commission rendered its decision on the appli-
cation of June 12, 1900, in which applicants applied for enrollment as
Mississippi Choctaws, in which it held that under the provisions of
the act of May 31, 1900, claimants could not be enrolled as members
of the Choctaw Nation, because their names did not appear on the
tribal rolls, and that while the name of Nellie Dyer, the alleged
grandmother of Victoria Boyd, appeared on the list of fourteenth
article claimants, the proof submitted was not clear that the said
Nellie Dyer, whose name appeared on said rolls, was in fact the
grandmother of the claimant, victoria Boyd.
July 14, 1904. Decision of the commission approved by the Sec-
retary.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE OIVILIZBD TEIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 443
8TATBMBNT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that Victoria Boyd,
being at least a half-breed Choctaw Indian, and residing in the
Choctaw Nation in 1896, should have been enrolled by the commis^
sion in accordance with her application, submitted September 7, 1896,
together with her children ; that the commission had ample authority
under the provisions of the act of June 28, 1898, to have enrolled her
and her children in accordance with their application submitted
August 28, 1899; that it was error for the commission to have re-
fused to adjudicate the case of claimants under said act in accordance
with the instructions of the department remanding the case; that i*
was error for the commission to have finally decided the case on the
application of June 12, 1900, under the provisions of the act of May
31, 1900, or to have denied claimants, because they were unable to
make strict proof of their claim as descendants of Nellie Dyer, a four-
teenth article* claimant under the treaty of 1830. These claimants are
admittedly Choctaw Indians by blood; they resided in the nations
in 1896, or two years before the requirement as to residence under
the act of Jime 28, 1898 ; that they three times applied to the com-
mission for enrollment, and were twice erroneously denied by said
commission ; that they applied to the officials of the Choctaw Nation
at Tuskahoma in 1896 for enrollment on the tribal rolls, and were
refused because thev could not pav the Indian officials $100 per head ;
that they are legally and equitably entitled to enrollment, are desti-
tute ana ignorant, and that it is the duty of the Government, the
trustee for these people, to see to it that they are enrolled.
Those entitled to enrollment are : Victoria Boyd and her children,
Willie Glover, DoUie Glover, Georgie Boyd, Lintz (or Lence) Boyd
(five in all).
EespectfuUy submitted.
Ballinges & Lkil
. No. 46.
Frank II. Jjove et al., ONF.-fiALr Choctaw Blood.
Commission No. M. C. R., 6323.
Willis Ix)ve, father of these children, accompanied by his son
Frank H. Love, saw the members of the select committee of the House
of Representatives when that committee was at Sulphur, in August,
1910, and presented the case of his children. The members of that
committee will doubtless remember Frank H. Love, who strongly
resembled a full blood. Judge Pollock, for the department, took
evidence in this case December 15, 1910, a record of which is at-
tached.
RECORD.
October 1. 1892. Application was made to the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes, at Muskogee, for the enrollment of Frank H.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
444 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
•
Love, Fannie Love, Sarah Ix^ve, and Ruth Love, minors; and Hattie
Brown^ Leo Brown.
Willis Love, father of the above named, testified that he married
their mother, j^orene Frazier, a full blood Choctaw woman, in Texas ;
that Lorenza Frazier was the daughter of John Frazier ; that she was
born in Blue County, Choctaw Nation, but that when she was quite
young a man by the name of Houston " took her to raise " ; that
after they were married they returned to the Choctaw Nation, and
located in the town of Durant; that his wife had a brother Simon
Frazier, and a sister Sallie Frazier; that Sallie Frazier was dead
and that he did not know anjrthing about the brother; that his wife
died in Ottoway. 111., January 3. 1897.
He further states that after living six years in Durant, he moved
his family to Indiana, and then to Illinois, and that he had just
returned to Durant. That when he left Illinois to return to Durant
he knew nothing of the division of the tribal j)roperty, or the existence
of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, but was returning
because for the past 10 vears his children, who were growing up,
" were not appreciated " W the whites, and he thought they would
be better oft here. He also states that he had continued to own
property in the Choctaw Nation during his absence in Illinois.
Affidavits of J. G. Wright, Mrs. Elizabeth Wright, Francis Dier,
E. E. Robinson, and Jesse Gardner were offered and received by
the commission.
These affidavits do not now appear in the record, but the record
does show that said affidavits were forwarded the department.
From the decision in the case it is clear that by some of said
affidavits it was attempted to be shown that the mother of Lorei^a
Frazier was Betsy (or Ishtiliahona).
There was also filed a certified copy of the marriage license of
W. Love and Lorena Frazier.
At the conclusion of the hearing the conmiission entered the fol-
lowing of record :
The children of the applicant have the physical appearance and characteristics
of mixed ancestry, composed of white and Indian blood* which their father,
who makes this application says Is Choctaw blood which they derive from his
wife, Lorena Love. Their general appearance, hair, color of their eyes and
complexion would Indicate the quantity of Choctaw blood which he claims
they possess. The hair of all the children Is black and straight, and coarse;
eyes black, complexion very much darker than the complexion of a full-blood
white; In fact the complexion Indicates an equal proportion of white and
Indian blood.
March 4, 1904. Decision of the commission refusing to enroll ap-
plicants either as citizens by blood or as Mississippi Choctaws. In
the opinion of the commission it is stated —
It appears from the evidence that the ancestors from whom applicants claim
were enrolled uiwn the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation and received the
annuity as such citizens prior to their death, in 18B8 and 1870, respectirely ;
but no such rolls are in the [Hjssesslon of the commission and no record evi-
dence Is submitted by the applicants In verlticatlon of the claim of enrollment
so specified.
TRmAL ENROLLMENT OF UNCLE.
On the 1874 census roll now in the office of the Commissioner to the
Five Civilized Tribes, Blue County, appears the name of Simon
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 445
Frazier opposite No. 176, and on the 1885 Choctaw census roll of
Jacksfork County appears the name of Simon Frazier opposite No,
344 and 37 years of age.
On the 1896 Choctaw census roll of Jacksfork County appears
the name of Simon Frazier opposite No. as 47 years of age. •
On the final rolls of the Choctaw Nation appears the name of
Simon Frazier. The commission field card record of this person
shows that he is on the 1896 tribal roll for Jacksfork County and
that he is the son of John Frazier and Emishtona, both full blood.
August 10, 1904. Action of commission approved by the depart-
ment.
STATEMENT BY CX)UNSEL.
Counsel for claimants submit that the birth of these children in
the Qioctaw Nation of a full-blood Choctaw mother and the record
evidence of the enrollment of their mother's brother makes their
claim to enrollment so strong as to preclude opposition from either
tribal or national' authorities.
Those entitled to enrollment are: Frank H. Love, Fannie Love^
Sarah Love, Ruth Love, Hattie Brown, Leo Brown (six in all).
Respectfully submitted.
Balunger & Lee.
Department of the Interiob.
Muskogee, Okia., Deccmher 15, 1910,
In the matter of the appHcatioii for the enrollment of Frank H. Love et al. aa
Choctaws by blood. (See M. C. R., 6323.)
•
Proceedings had at Dnrant, Okla., November 14, 1910, before W. C. PoHock,
Assistant Attorney, Interior Department.
Appearances: BaUinger & I.ee, by Albert J. Lee, attorneys for claimants.
Rodgers & Clapp, by George D. Rodgers, attorneys for the Chickasaw Nation.
Willis Love, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your full name, please. — A. Willis Love.
Q. What is your ppst-offlce address? — A. Durant, OkUi.
Q. Are you the father of Frank H., Fannie, Sarah, Ruth Ix>ve, and Hattie
Brown? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you appear for these children before the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes at Muskogee?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time you so appeared did you file with the commission any record
evidence of your marriage with your wife? — A. Yes, sir.
.Q. What did you me?--A. Well, I didn't file it at that time, but I did after-
wards; about a month afterwards I filed an affidavit from the minister that
married us, and sent the certificate of marriage to Muskogee.
Q. Did you mall that to Tams Blxby?— A. No, sir; delivered to him in person
at Muskogee.
Q. Who delivered it?— A. J. O. Pool.
Q. Was he your attorney?— A. He was at that time; yes, sir.
Q. Did you accompany him at that time?— A. No^ I think not.
Q. How do you know, then, that he filed it? — A. Well, I am satisfied that he
did, because he was here and took this other evidence, and It all went there
together. I had lived at Durant and we came here to get the evidence from
these people that knew me. Mr. Gardner here and Mrs. Duer and some
fourteen or fifteen here that kpew me and my wife.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
446 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. The record in tbe office of the commission shows that ai:^licatfon was made
for Franlc H. Love, Fannie Love, Sarah Love, Ruth Love, Hattie Brown, and a
son of Hattie Brown, Leo Brown. Now, are there any other children of Hattie
Brown?— A. Application put in afterwards for a Carl Brown.
Q. Is he a son of Hattie Brown? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he's your grandson? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember the date that application was sent to the commission?—
A. That was in— in the fall — October or November of 1902.
Q. Your answer is that it was in the fall of 1902? — ^A. Yes, sir; Just before
Christmas in 1902.
Q. Are there any other children or grandchildren of yours that should be in
this record that are not?— A. No; I think the other grandchildren are too
young. There are two other grandchildren, but they are too young.
Q. Any of them living March 4, 1906, four years ago? — ^A. I don't know what
her age is; no, I don't think so.
Q. Mr. Love, do you know anything about who raised your wife? — ^A. Frank
Houston and his wife.
Q. Where do they live?— A. They lived at Terrell, Tex., and lived at Yamaby.
Q. Who was guardian for your wife when she was a child? — ^A. Simeon
Oardner. brother to Jesse.
Q. Where did he live? — ^A. Here in Blue County ; sheriff in Blue County.
Q. Is Jesse Gardner living now? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Simeon Gardner living now? — ^A. No, sir; he's dead.
Q. Do you know of any relatives that your wife had in the Territory that are
now living? — A. No; none living now that I know of, except Mrs. Jefferson.
She has an aunt here in Blue.
Q. Aunt by blood?— A. By blood.
Q. Are there any other relatives living here? Dead or alive? — ^A. Mrs, Jef-
ferson has two sons living that would be cousins.
Q. Any relatives dead now? — ^A. A brother that's dead and a sister that's dead.
Q. What are their names? — ^A. Simeon Frazier and Sallie Frazier.
Q. Where did Simeon Frazier live?— A. At Owl. He lived at Durant when
we knew him.
Q. Where did Sallie live? — ^A. At Yamaby; and this man, Dr. Wright, raised
her, and they moved from Yamaby to Terrell, Tex., and then she came back and
married a man at Stringtown.
Q. This man, Dr. Wright, you refer lo the gentleman sitting here, do you?—
A. Yea, sir.
Q. Mr. Love, where were your children bom? — ^A. Frank H. Love was bom
here in Durant ; Hattie Brown was bom in Remington, Ind. ; and Fannie, Ruth«
and Sarah were bom in Ottawa, 111.
By Mr. Rodoebs :
Q. Your wife's name was Ix)rena Frazier? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you marry her? — ^A. Married her in 1881.
Q. Here in this county?— A. I first married her at Terrell, Kauffman County,
Tex. That's where she was raised ; that is, she lived there when I was married.
Q. Is that where Frank Houston lived?- A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he raised her from a child?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you married her down there? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you marry her again? — A. Yes, sir; after we came to Durant;
I was married on the 24th day of May ; we came here about the Ist of June, and
along the following fall all white men that were intermarried here were notified
to get out, and I went to Armstrong Academy and was remarried under the
Choctaw laws.
Q. The same year? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was 1883?— A. 1881.
Q. How long did you live here with your wife after that second marriage?—
A. Until 1884 or 1885 ; I was here about three years after.
Q. Then where did you go?— A. Remington, Ind.
Q. Frank was living with you then? — ^A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Took him with you?— A. Yes, sir.
15. How long did you live at Remington? — ^A. A year and a half.
Q. Then where did you go?— A. Ottawa, HI.
-Q. How long did you live there?— A. About 12 years.
Q. Where did you go from Ottawa, 111.?— A. Durant
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVIIJEZED TMBES IN OKLAHOMA. 447
Q. Do you know what the date was that you left Ottawa, 111.?— A. We got to
Muskogee on the 25th day of September, 1902, and had left about three days
l>efore that. »
Q. Then you lived in Remington, Ind., and Ottawa, 111., during all this Inter-
Tening time?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. And got back here September 25? — A. September 25, 1902.
Q. Was your wife still living at that time?— A. She died in Ottawa, 111., In
189S.
Q. Was your wife's name ever placed on any of the tribal rolls? — A. I think
she waa
Q. Do you know what rolls? — A. She was schooled toy the nation at Bloom-
field Academy in the Chickasaw Nation.
Q. When she was just a child?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the date of her birth?— A. No; but there is witnesses here
I guess can tell the exact date.
Q. But you don't know of her name being put on any roll from the time she
left here to go to Texas? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Don't know of the names of any of your children being placed on any
tribal rolls, do you? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did they ever draw any annuities or money as Indians? — ^A. No, sir; all
tliat annuity was drawn after we left here.
Q. What time was it you got back to Muskogee?— A. Twenty-fifth day of
September. 1902.
Q. Did you go before the commission on that day? — ^A. The same day.
Q. That is the day you made the application?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much Indian blood do you claim your wife had? — ^A. Full blood ; her
mother was a Choctaw or her father one. One was Choctaw and one was
Chickasaw ; but I don't know which was which.
Witness excused.
Jesse J. Gardner, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your name, please. — ^A. Jesse J. Gardner.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Gardner?— A. Here at Durant.
Q. This is your post office?- A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old are you, Mr. Gardner?— A. I will be 60 years old the 20th of this
EQonth.
Q. Are you a citizen of the Choctaw Nation? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. By blood?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What degree of blood are you? — ^A. About three-quarters Indian.
Q. How long have you lived in the vicinity of Durant? — ^A. About fifty-eight
years.
Q. Did you know Simeon Frazier? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't know him?— A. No, sir.
Q. Did you know Sallie Frazier? — ^A. I knew a John Frazier.
Q. Did you know a Sallie Frazier? — ^A. Sallie Frazier was John Frazier's
wife.
Q. Well do you know Mr. Love here? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know his wife? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was she?— A. Frazier.
Q. Well now did she have any brothers and sisters? — ^A. Frazier?
Q. This man's wife. Did she have any brothers or sisters? — ^A. No, sir; not
that I know of.
Q. Do you know who her mother and father was? — ^A. John Frazier, called
flish, Choctaw name.
Q. Well now did this man's wife have any brothers or sisters? — ^A. Not as I
know of; I think that one died.
Q. What was her name? — A. I can't think of It now.
Q. Do you know when the mother and father of Mr. Love's wife died? — ^A.
Tea, sir.
Q. About what year?— A. Died during the war, but I have forgot the date; I
think about the close of the war she died.
Q. About how old was Lorena at the time her parents died?— A. Very small.
Q. What became of her at that time do you know?— A. No, sir; I don't
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
448 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Yoii don't know who took her?— A. I heard some one took her but I ncTer
learned who it was. My brother was guardian of her at that time, takhig care
of the estate.
Q. He was administrator wasn't be?— A. No, guardian for her and her sister.
Q. Guardian for Lorena?— A. Yes, sir. The court records show that.
Q. What court records?— A. Choctaw court records.
Q. What county?— A. Blue County. I
Q. Did you name her sister a minute ago? — ^A. I forgot the name.
Q. You have forgotten the name of Lorena's sister?-— A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you don't know of any uncles or aunts that Lorena had? — A. No,
sir; 1 don't know anything about that John Frazier he came from the lower
district and moved up here before the war and of course I don't know mach
about that.
Q. What relation was he to them?— A. These girls' father.
Q. Lorena's father? — A. Yes, eir.
Q. Do you know anything about some man taking Lorena to raise? — ^A. I
understood that
Q. You don't know anything about that of your own knowledge? — A. No, sir.
Q. When did you last see Ix)rena?— A. Little while before she left Durant.
Q. That was after she married Mr. Love and Frank had been bom? — ^A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know anything about Lorena going to Bloomfield school? — ^A. I
heard she did.
Q. When did you hear that? — A. My brother told me that He was her
guardian.
Q. Did you know anything about a Betsy Frazier? — ^A. No, sir; I don't know
that
Q. You wouldn't be able to state now whether Sallie had a sister named
Betsy? — A. No, sir.
Q. You say you knew the name of one and didn't know the name of the
other? — A. No, that's all I know.
Witness excused.
Larkin G. Wright, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee: /
Q. Kindly state your full name, Doctor. — ^A. I^rkin G. Wright
Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Wright? — A. Well, I am living Just outside the
corporation, about half a mile north of here.
Q. Durant is your ix>st office? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old are you? — ^A. I will be 76 years ol& if I live to see the 12tli of
next December.
Q. Are you a practicing physician? — A. No, sir; not now. I haven't practiced
for many years.
Q. Did you know Lorena Love? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you know her? — ^A. Well, I knew her from the time that die
was taken away from Simeon Gardner until she was a married woman. Now,
I will tell you, Simeon Gardner was, at the time that these children were liv-
ing, was sheriff of this county, and they were placed ia his hands by the
county with the little property that they had left, and there were three children,
Simeon Frazier and Sallie and Lorena. Ix)rena at that time was about 9
*years of age and tbe other was 11, and Dixon Durant. that lived here at that
timiQ — I was boarding his children at the Bloomfield Academy at the time — and
my wife had been after me to find her a Choctaw girl. Simeon Gardner lived on
the place that his brother now lives on east of town and I came to see Simeon
Gardner and got permission to take the oldest one of these girls to raise; she
was then about 11 years old.
Q. Which was that? — A. Sallie, I raised her; and the other one was about
9 years of age; and my wife's sister, Mrs. Houston, after we took Sallie, con-
cluded to take the other, and I got permission from Simeon Gardner to take
the other one down — they were at that time I believe, her husband and hei;
were at my house at the time I got her and I brought her there and they k^t
her in the country here some years after that— two or three—and then oioved
to Kauffman County, Tex., and took this child with them and she was raised
down there.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 449
Q. Do you know anything about her marriage to her — to Mr. Love? — ^A. Mr.
Love was living with me at the time he married, when he was 21 years old.
Q. Do you know what became of Simeon Frazler? — ^A. No. sir; I do not.
The boy had no home and I don't think these boys in this country raised up
here — they were sorta wild and went wherever they pleased, and he came down
and stayed a while after I got these children — came down and stopped there
at Kock Springs with a merchant and then left there and I don't know what
became of him afterwards.
Q. What became of Lorena's sister Sallie? — A. She married while she was
yet living with me; married a white man by the name of Horine, and he moved
back into this country and* she was thrown from a horse and died from the
effects of it after they had been married a year or so.
Q. What year was that?— A. About 78.
Q. Do you know the name of the mother of these three children? — A. No, sir.
And I want to tell you right now these Indian people nearly all have two
names that they went by. She had an Indian name that she went by among the
Indians and then an American name.
Q. Do you know .either of those names? — A. No, sir; but I ought to have
remembered. I went to see the old preacher just a short time before he died
in regard to these children and made inquiry along these lines and he was
the one that told me particularly about the two names. He was the pastor of
the church to which she belonged and was probably converted under his min-
istry. His name was Calvin Robinson and I went to see him and talked to him
about these children, but I have forgotten her name.
Q. Now, do you know the name of the father of the three children that you
have told about? — ^A. No, sir; they were both dead before I knew anything
about them.
Q. When you first knew them (the children) they were in the hands of the
county? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What county was that? — A. Blue CJounty.
Q. Blue County?— A. Yes, sir.
Witness excused.
Jesse J. Gardner recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mr. Gardner, do you desire to correct any statement you made in your
examination a moment ago? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What Is It?— A. The name Betsy; I called it Sallie; I made a mistake. I
remembered afterwards that her name on the church roll was Betsy ITrazler,
Jolm Frazier's wife, and mother of Lorena.
Q. Where did you find that?— A. On the church book.
Q. Do you remember any Indian name that she had? — ^A. No.
Q. What would be the Indian name for Betsy? — A. I forgot it now.
Q. You don't know what the Indians would call Betsy? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know the Indian name of the father of these children? — A. Fllsh.
Witness excused.
Nancy Elizabeth Wright, being dnly sworn and examined as a witness, testi-
fied as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your name. — A. Nancy Elizabeth Wright.
Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. Durant.
Q. Who is your husband, Mrs. Wright?— A. This man here— Larkin G. Wright.
Q. The gentleman that was Just on the witness stand a moment ago?— -A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Mr. Love? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know his wife? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know anything about the history of Mrs. Love, how she was
brought up and where she was raised and her parentage?— A. Yes ; a good d«al,
in an incidental way.
Q. Kindly state what you know about Mrs. Love, when you first knew her. —
A. That Sallie, her sister Sallie, came to our house I reckon nearly a year
before she died ; me and my husband raised Sallie. In the meantime my sister,
Mra Houston, wanted a little girl and Dr. Wright >came over to Gardner's and
68282—13 29
Digitized by V^OOQIC
450 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOKA.
got her and carried ber to our house, and I saw her at my stater's aboat eTerj
week for years.
Q. Do you know whether or not she attended the Bloomfield school? — A. I
don't think that I know about that. I don*t believe the school was where
Choctaws and Chlckasaws both att^ided.
Q. Did you have any connection with that school? — A. I taught there once,
but that was before she was there; I taught there along two or three years
before that
Q. You say that Mrs. Houston, a sister of yours, took Lorena to raise? — ^A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Where was Mrs. Houston living at that time? — A. At the time she to<^
her she was living down near Rock Springs, where we had lived, and her bos-
band was a stock man and they afterwards moved to Kauffman CJounty, Tex.
Q. Did you ever see Lorena after that? — A. We went to that country, too,
but we went there several years after they did, and I saw her often.
Q. Were you living in the, neighborhood when she was married? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present when she married Mr. Love? — ^A. Yes, sir; he was living
at our house and had been about a year.
Q. Can you now name the minister who performed that ceremony? — A. I
know It was the man that baptized me, but I can't recall the name.
Q. The same minister that baptised you? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you can't recall his name right now? — A. Mayl>e I will think of It
after a while.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Love and his wife lived after they were married
at Terrell, Tex.? — ^A. They came up here to the Choctaw Nation, to Durant
Q. When did you come back to the Choctaw Nation? — ^A. We came back 10
or 12 years ago.
Q. You never saw Lorena here in the nation? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. After you came back? — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know anything about what became of a brother and slBter of
Lorena? — A. I don't know anything about the brother. The sistw lived and
married at my house, and afterwards — we lived then near Rock Springs — and
the came here to live and died here. I don't know much about her after she
married.
Q. Do you know the name of the brother? — ^A. Simeon seems familiar, but I
couldn't say that was it.
Q. Do you know anything about the parentage of these three children?—
A. No, sir.
Q. Were these children full-blood Indians? — ^A. Yes, sir; I presume so.
Q. Never heard of th^n having white blood? — ^A. No, sir. That minister's
name was Spencer that married Willis and also baptixed me.
Witness excused.
Frances Duer, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. LEac:
Q. Kindly state your name. — ^A. Frances Duer.
Q. How do you spell that last name?— A. D-u-e-r.
Q. Where do you live? — ^A. About 2 miles west of town.
Q. How long have you lived there?— A. I have lived here all my life, close to
Durant, for 30 years.
Q. About how old are you Mrs.. Duer? — ^A. I am about 58.
Q. Did I understand you to say that you had lived In this country about all
your life?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Willis Love, here?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know his wlfe?^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was her name? — ^A. Lor^ia Fraeler.
Q. When did you first know Lorena Frassler?— A. As long as I can remember
I knew her.
Q. Well, do you mean by that ever since she was bom?— A. Bver since she
was a small child.
Q. Do you know anything about who her people were?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, who did you say they were?— A. John Frasier, and I don't know his
wife*s name, never did hear It. His Indian nai^e was Fllsh, and we used to
tall her Mrs. Fllsh. That's all the way I knew her.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IK OKLAHOMA. 461
Q. Do you kuow about what time John Prazler and his wife died? — ^A. I was
small and didn*t pay much attention. He died a smart while before she died.
Q. Where did they live? — ^A. Off a little ways from here.
Q. In the Choctaw Nation? — ^A. Yes, sir; in the Choctaw Nation.
Q. In Blue County?— A. Tes, sir; Blue County.
Q. Do you know what brothers and sisters, if any, Lorena had? — ^A. A
brother and sister, Sallie, and his name Simeon.
Q. Do you know what became of Simeon Frazler? — ^A. I heard he died; died
right around here.
Q. Ton don't know wh^re he died? — A. Right close around here, but I don*t
tmow where.
Q. Do you know what became of Sallie? — A. She died.
Q. She died? — A. Yes, sir; I never seen her no more after they went off to
Texaa I didn't see them any more and never seen Sallie any nK)re, but I sec^i
Rena after she came to Durant.
Q. What do you know about them going to Texas?— A. I knew they went,
but I don't know much about that ; nothing until they came back.
Q. Did you ever see Lorena after she went to Texas?— A. Not until .after she
married.
Q. Saw her after she married? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see her? — ^A. In Durant.
Q. About when was that? — ^A. Well, that's been twenty-six or seven years ago,
I guess; I don't know Just exactly. I didn't take no notice of it at the time,
you know.
Q. Do you know a Mrs. Jefferson ?^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know a MoUie Jefferson? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does she live? — ^A. I don't know; I haven't seen her for a long
time.
Q. Was she related in any way to Lorena Love? — ^A. Yes, sir; aunt.
Q. Aunt?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is she an Indian. — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether she is enrolled and has her land or not? — A. I don't
know.
Witness excused.
Durant, Okla., yovemher 19, 1910,
No appearance for Nations.
Mollie Jefferson, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows, through Frank Anderson, sworn interpreter:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. What is your name? — ^A. Mollie Jefferson.
Q. Where do you live? — ^A. About 7 miles from here.
Q. How old are you? — ^A. Fifty-seven.
Q. Who was your father?— A. Bob Holmes, in English.
Q. Who was your mother? — A. Betsey Honey.
.Q. Did you Imow Lorena Frazler? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was she? — ^A. She's the dau^ter of Fllsh — John Frazier.
Q. What relation was Lorena Frazier to you? — ^A. Niece to my husband.
Q. When did you last see Lorena Frazler? — ^A, Been a good while; I don't
know.
Q. What is the name of your husband? — ^A. ^Wesley Anderson.
Q. Who was Lorena's father and mother? — ^A. John Frazier.
Q. That was her father. Who was her mother? — ^A. They used to call her
Betsy, is all I know, and in the Choctaw name they called it Bshtona.
Q. What were the parents of Lorena ; Indians, white, or what? — A. Full
Mood.
Q. Full-blood Choctaws?— A. Yes.
Q. Did Lorena have any brothers and sisters that you know of? — ^A. She had
a <>rother named Simeon Frazier ; he's dead.
Q. Where did Simeon Frazier live?— A. He didn't haxe no permanent home —
Just around — died in the neighborhood where I lived.
Q. When did he die?- A. Just al)out 40 years.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
452 FIVE CIVrLIZED TRTBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Has he been dead 40 years? — ^A. Long time; about 40 years he has beeo
dead. He died before they had this M. K. & T. through here.
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. That is John Frazier that you are tallying about? — ^A. Yes.
By Mr. Lee:
Q. I was talking about Simeon, when he died?— A. He died before this Katy
had a line through here.
Q. Simeon did?— A. Yes.
Q. Did Lorena have any sisters? — ^A. Had a sister oldei: than she; was named
Sallie.
Q. Did you know when Sallie died?— A. She died after her brother died.
Q. Do you know of any relatives that Lorena now has living? — ^A. No reUk-
tion ; I don't think of any kind except John Anderson.
Q. What relation Is he? — ^A. John Anderson was Rena's imcle's son.
Q. Did you know Simeon Frazier that lived at Owl? — A. I never did go np
that way and I don't know.
Q. Did you know any other Simeon Frazier except that one that died several
years ago? — ^A. There's lots of different Frazlers, but no other one named
Simeon Frazier; only that one.
Q. Are you certain that the Simeon, who was a brother of Lorena, died a
long time ago, about 40 years ago? — A. Yes, sir ; •! know It
Q. Do you know who Lorena Frazier married? — ^A. Willis Love; thafs what
I heard.
Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge? — ^A. Yes; I heard about it and
I know it; I liave seen it myself.
Q. Do you know if Lorena had any children by Willis Love? — ^A, Yes, sir;
Hattie, Frank, Fannie, Sarah, Ruth.
Q. Do you know whether Ruth is married or not? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Sarah is married? — Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Fannie is married or not? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Frank married? — ^A. Yea
Q. Did you mention Hattie Brown as being a daughter of Lorena Love or
not?— A. Yes.
Q. Is Hattie married?— A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether she has any children? — A. I think she has two of
them, but I haven't seen them for a while.
Q. Do you know whether Lorena is now living? — ^A. I said she's dead.
Q. Do you know this gentleman sitting here by me? — ^A. Yes.
Q. Who is he?— A. Willis Love.
Q. Is he the husband of Lorena? — ^A. Yes; used to be.
Q. When did the mother and father of Lorena and Sallie and Simeon die? —
A. They have been a long time dead ; I don't know exactly.
Q. Do you know what became of the three children when their father and
mother died? — A. The father died and then the mother died the year after that.
We taken charge of the children, and Lucinda Durant came and got the chil-
dren and sent them to school.
Q. Do you know Dr. Wright?— A. Yes; he had the children, too.
Q. Do you know a man named Gardner? — ^A. Yes; I knowed him; he's defid.
Q. Do you know whether he had anything to do with the children or not? —
No. We had them, and Dixon sent them to school.
Q. What connection did Dr. Wright have with them?— A. Just keeping them*
I suppose.
Q. Do you know what became of Lorena? — ^A. Dead.
Q. I mean what became of Lorena Wright after Dr. Wright liad h&tl — A.
After Dr. Wright had her this fellow married her.
Witness excused.
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceedings
had in the above-entitled cause, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
translation of his stenographic notea
Albebt G. MoMiluln.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of December, 1910.
[iteAL.] Hasby Montaqxte,
Ifotary Public
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE OIVIUZED TBIBBS IK OKLAHOMA. 453
Sarah A. Kelton et al., Choctaw by Blood.
Commission, Nos. 26 and 226. United States court, No. 130. M.
Citizenship court, No. 105.
The blood relatives of claimants are on the finally approved tribal
rolls as will appear from the affidavit of Bloomer Anaerson hereto
attached.
1896. Original application filed September 7, 1896, for enrollment
of : Sarah A. Kelton, Bloomer Anderson, Julian Anderson, as Choc-
taws by blood. Bloomer and Julia are children of Sarah A. bv her
first husband. Answer filed by Choctaw Nation, and on December 1,
1896, commission denied application. No written decision. (Citi-
zenship filed comm. vol. 1, p. 46, case No. 26.)
1897. Case appealed United States Court Central District Indian
Territory and on Septe^nber 9, 1897, the following persons were ad-
mitted : Sarah A. Kelton, Avon Kelton, Bloomer Anderson, Julia
Anderson. ^(Certified copy decree hereto attached.)
1898. On September 15, 1898, Sarah A. Kelton appeared before
commission at Pauls Valley and stated she was the mother of Bloomer
and Julia Anderson, all admitted to Choctaw citizenship by decree of
the United States court September 9, 1897, and testified she was one-
quarter Choctaw and had lived for 11 years previous thereto at Sans
Bois, Choctaw Nation. Her statements are corroborated by the testi-
mony of other witnesses.
A marriage certificate on file shows that on January 4, 1892, Solo-
mon McGilbrey, a Choctdw Indian and judge of Sans Bois County,
Choctaw Nation, issued a marriage license to "Avon Kelton, a citizen
of the United States, and Amelia Anderson, a citizen of the Choctaw
Nation," and it appears they were duly married according to Choc-
taw laws and customs by Judge McGilbrey. It appears from the
record that Sarah A. Kelton was one-quarter Choctaw, but had never
been enrolled on the tribal rolls.
It is alleged, and nowhere contradicted in the record, that Avon
Kelton, citizen of the Choctaw Nation, by intermarriage with Sarah
A. Kelton, voted in all elections and exercised all the rights and
privileges of a native Choctaw.
By decree of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court of December
17, 1902, the above decree of the United States court was vacated and
annulled in this as well as all other cases in which favorable judg-
ment had been obtained in the United States courts. The case then
went before the citizenship court and the claimants failed or refused
to submit any additional testimony. The citizenship court excluded
the record of the United States court as well as the record before
the commission, thus leaving no evidence before the court, and on
March 21, 1904, a decree was entered adjudging and decreeing Sarah
A. and her husband, Avon Kelton, and her children Bloomer (or
Blummer) and Julia Anderson not citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Subsequently an application was filed with the commission by
Bloomer Anderson for the enrollment of his minor child, Bessie H,
Anderson, and on May 27, 1904, the application was rejected because
the citizenship court had denied the claim of her father through
whom she clamied.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
454 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBB8 IN OEIiAHOMA.
Claimants entitled to enrollment: Sarah A. Kelton, Avon Kelton,
Julia Anderson, Bloomer Anderson, Bessie Lee H. Anderson (bom
March 11, 1898; Bloomer Anderson's minor child). (Exhibits at-
tached.)
Respectfully submitted.
Bai/Likoer & Lee.
AFFIDAVIT OF 8ABAH AMELIA KELTON, n£e MBS. JAMES ANDBBflON.
Sarah Amelia Kelton, n4e Mrs. James Anderson, after being duly sworn, on
her oath deposes and says that William Bee, a full-blood Choctaw, roll No. 9136
of th« final approved rolls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, is a second
cousin of hers, his mother being a sister of deponent's grandmother; that
Joseph James, a Choctaw by blood, roll No. 15679, and Jaclsson James, a
Choctaw by blood, roll No. 9200, both being full-blood Indians and on the final
approved roll of Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, are second cousins of afi^ant
herein, their f^tiier being a brother of affiant's grandnH>ther ; that the fkcts
above set out are true and correct; that affiant is the mother of Bloomer
Anderson.
Sarah Amelia KELibN
(N6e Mrs. James Anderson).
Subscribed and sworn to b^ore me, a notary public In and for Carter County,
Okla., on this 15th day of October, 1910, at Ardmore.
[SEAL.] D. H. Dawsow,
Notary PuUio.
My commission expires August 8, 1914.
United States of Amebica,
Indian Territory j Central District, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on
the 9th day of September, A. D. 1897.
Present : Hon. William H. H. Clayton, Judge of said court. The /foUowtng
order was made and entered of record, to wit : Sarah A. Kelton et al. v, Choctaw
Nation. No. 130.
JUDGMENT.
The above-entitled cause, coming on to be heard this the 9th day of Septem1»ar,
1897, upon the report of the special master in chancery, T. N. Foster, Esq.,
which said report is by the court confirmed and approved, and exhibits therewith
filed and the plaintiffs and defendant appearing by their respective attorneys,
and it appearing by the said master's report and the evidence filed in this cause
that the allegations in the plalntifl's' petition are true, and the court being fuHy
advised in the premises, it is therefore by the court considered, ordered, adjudged^
and decreed that the said plaintiffs. Sarah A. Kelton, Avon Kelton, Blum-
mer Anderson, and Julia Anderson, be, and they are hereby, admitted to citizen-
ship in the Choctaw Nation, and that their names be placed upon the rolls of
the Choctaw citizens prepared or to be prepared by the Uftlted States Com-
mission to the Five Civilized Trtt>es of Indians ; that said commission is hereby
directed to place the names of the said Sarah A. Kelton, Avon Kelton, Bliunmer
Anderson, and Julia Anderson upon said rolls; and the clerk of this court
is hereby directed to furnish the said commission with a true and perfect copy
of the judgment, decree, and order; and that the plaintiffs have and recover
of and from the defendant, the Choctaw Nation, all their costs herein laid out
and expended.
The within Is a true copy from the record of an order made by said court
on the 9th day of September, A. D. 1897.
[SEAL.] B. J. FAwmw, cnerki
Indorsed: Nos. 26 and 226. No. 130. Sarah A. Kelton et al. v. Choctaw
Nation. Copy of order of court
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IK OKLAHOMA. 455
This ig to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the distribution of the land of said
tribes; and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of copy of
the order of the United States court for central district, Indian Territory,
entered on the 9th day of September, 1897, by Hon. William H. H. Oayton^
judge, in the matter of Sarah A. Kelton v. Choctaw Nation, No. 130.
J. Geo. Wbight,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. Anqell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
MusKOQEE, Okla., Octohcr 31, 1910,
Willie G. Patterson et al., Maggie Lee Glance et al.
Commission No. R-1272.
January 12, 1901. Applicant appeared before the commission at
Muskogee and made application for enrollment of himself and child
as Choctaws by blood. As his name did not appear on any tribal
rollfi made by the Choctaw Indians in Indian Territory, which fact,
under the act of May 31, 1900, prohibited the commission from
receiving, considering,' or making any record of the application of
any person not on some tribal roll, and as his two brotners, Jamea
and Walter Patterson, had been enrolled as Choctaws by blood, the
commission permitted claimant to make application for enrollment
as a Missisippi Choctaw, claiming rights under the fourteenth article
of the treaty of 1830, which was the cmly kind of an application the
commission was authorized to receive.
Applicant was examined, and testified to the following facts :
That he was a son of Sarah Patterson, a one-fourth-blood Choc-
taw^ that he was born in Mississippi, near Eddigers Depot, Choctaw
Nation; taken to Texas when about 8 years old; remained there until
185>7, when he moved to Sans Bois County, Choctaw Nation, in which
nation he has since continuously resided; that his mother was a
Choctaw Indian in Mississippi, but neither he nor his mother had
been enrolled in the Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory; that his
iwo brothers, Walter and Jim Patterson, liad been enrolled by the
commission; that he was married and had one child, Noiar Patter-
son, a girl.
Henry Pattersonj claimant's brother, appeared as a witness and
testified, corroboratmg in all respects the testimony of his brother.
Copy of the exammation record is hereto attached and marked
•♦Exhibit A."
May 9, 1902. Maggie I^ee Glance, full sister of Willie G. Patter-
son, applicant herein, and full sister of James and Walter Patterson,
enrolled by the commission as blood Choctaws, appeared before the
commission at Muskogee and made application for the enrollment of
herself and her minor children, as follows: Vada Glance, Ollie
Glance, Walt<Mi Glance, Dora Glance, Wiley Glance, Jake Glance,
Ella Glance, and Gilbert Glance, as Choctaws by blood.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
456 FIVE CIVIUZED TMBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
It is shown by her examination record that this applicant had
been living in tne Choctaw Nation continuously since 1888. The
facts in her case, except as to residence, and identical with those above
set out in the case of her brother, Willie G. Patterson, as will appear
frcwn the copv of the examination record hereto attached and marked
" Exhibit B/'
The record shows that James and Walter Patterson, full brothers
of Willie G. Patterson and Maggie Lee Glance, applicants herein,
were admitted by act of the Choctaw Council on November 6, 1884,
in bill No. 50, and were enrolled by the commission on Choctaw field
card Nos. 4690 and 2857, respectively, and their names appear on the
final approved roll of Choctaws by blood opposite Nos. 5272 and
8403, respectively^ and that their children are all enrolled as Choc-
taws by blood.
Applications were also submitted for the enrollment of James M.
Patterson as an intermarried Choctaw and Henry Patterson and
children as Choctaws by blood, but counsel for claimants concedes
that James M. Patterson is not entitled as an intermarried, not
having married according to tribal laws, and that Henry Patterscm
is not entitled, because he did not move to the Choctaw Nation until
1900, and was not a resident of the Choctaw Nation on June 28,
1898, as required by law. Therefore no claim is made for their
enrollment.
February 7, 1903. The conunission rendered its decision denying
claimants' enrollment as Choctaws by blood, and denying them as
Mississippi Choctaws, because they had failed to establish that their
ancestors took land in Mississippi under the fourteenth article of the
treaty of 1830.
Copy of the decision is hereto attached and marked " Exhibit C'
May 15, 1903. Decision of the commission approved by the Secre-
tary.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for apolicants respectfully submit that Willie G. Patter-
son and his sister Maggie Lee Glance, full brother and sister of James
and Walter Patterson, enrolled with their children as blood Choc-
taws, are entitled to enrollment because (1) they are Choctaw In-
dians by blood; (2) they were bona fide residents of the nation long
before June 28, 1898, the time fixed by law. The mere fact that they
neglected to have their names placed on the rolls made up by the
Indian authorities ought not in equity to deprive them of their clear
birthright. Their chfldren, as shown by the record, are also entitled
to enrolment. Those thus entitled are : Willie G. Patterson, Willie
C. Patterson, Maggie Lee Glance, Vada Glance, OUie Glance, Walton
Glance, Dora Glance, Wiley Glance, Jake Glance, Ella Glance, Gil-
bert Glance.
(Eleven in all.)
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 457
Exhibit A.
f
Department of the Interiob,
(Commission to Tirt: Five Civilized Tribes,
Atoka, Ind. T., January 12, 1901,
In the matter of the application for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of Willie G. Patterson and his minor child. Willie G. Patterson, having been
first duly sworn, on his oath testifies as follows:
Examination by the Commission :
Q. What is your name?— A. Willie 0. Patterson.
Q. What is your age?--A, Thirty-eight.
Q. What is your post-office address?— A. Krebs, Ind. T.
Q. Indian Territory? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you lived in Krebs? — ^A. I have lived in Krebs something
over two years.
Q. Where did you live before you lived in Krebs? — ^A. I lived in the Chicka-
saw Nation.
Q. What place; do you remember? — ^A. Place they call Hart, near Hart.
Q. How long did you live there? — ^A. One year.
Q. And where did you live before that? — ^A. I lived at Sans Bols, in Sans
Bois County.
Q. Texas?— A. Choctaw Nation.
Q. How long did you live there ^ — ^A. One year. .
Q. And I>efore that where did you live? — ^A. Texas.
Q. How long did yon live in Texas? — ^A. I was raised there.
Q. Bom and raised in Texas? — A. Not born.
Q. Where were you born? — .\. Mississippi.
Q. How old were you when you left Mississippi? — A. Well, sir, I don't
tcnow just exactly how old ; I was old enough to go to school.
Q. Seven or eight, you think? — A. Yes. sir; something about 8 years old.
Q. And from there you went to Texas? — ^A. My father carried me to Texas.
Q. And you came from Texas to the Territory? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what place did you live in Mississipi? — A. I can think of It, I reckon,
Eddigers Depot.
Q. How do you spell that? — ^A. Eddiger, I reckon.
Q. What is your father's name?— A. J. M. Patterson.
Q. Is he living? — ^A. I don*t know.
Q. Don't know whether he is living or dead? — A. No, sir; not at this time.
Q. What is your mother's name?— A. Before she married my father?
Q. No; what is her name now? — ^A. Patterson.
Q. Her first name?— A. Sarah.
Q. Is she living?— A. No, sir.
Q. Through which one of these parents do you claim Choctaw blood? — A.
My mother.
Q. How much do you claim?— A. My father tells me that she was a quarter
Indian.
* Q. Yes; how much do you claim? — ^A. Well, I don't know.
Q. If she claim a quarter, how much do you claim? — A. Half of that.
Q. It would be one-eighth, wouldn't it?— A. That is what I would think; I
alnt positive.
Q. You think about an eighth?— A. About an eighth.
Q. Is the name of your mother on any of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw
Nation?— A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Was she ever recognized by any of the authorities of the Choctaw Nation
lis a Choctaw Indian?— A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Have you ever made application to the Choctaw tribal authorities as a
citizen of the Choctaw Nation? — A. Never have had any chance.
Q. Did you, or did anyone In your behalf. In 1896, under the act of Congress
of June 10, 1896, make application to the Commission to .the Five Civilized
Tribes for citizenship in the Choctaw Nation?— A. I don't know.
Q. Have you ever been admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by judg-
ment of the United States court in Indian Territory on appeal from the de-
cision of the Choctaw tribal authorities or the decision of the commlFsIon?— A.
No, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
458 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Have you ever before this time made application to either the tribal au-
thorities or the authorities of the United States for either citizenship or en-
rollment as a Choctaw? — A. This is my first opportunity.
Q. This is the first aw>licati6n, then, you haye ever made, of any kind? —
A. Yee, sir.
Q. You are now maldug api)Ucation for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you making your claim as a beneficiary under provisions of the 14th
article of the treaty of 1830? — A. I don't understand.
Q. Do you know anything about the treaties pertaining to your application? —
A. No, sir, I don't.
Q. Have not had any of them explained? — ^A. No, air.
Q. Do you understand or believe that there are treaties or laws made by
the United States that enable you to make this application for identification?—
A. I believe there ought to be, but now I don*t Imow.
Q. You don't know anything about it? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear of the treaty of 1830?— A. No, sir.
Q. Made between the United States Government and the Choctaw Nation
who lived in Mississippi at that time?— A. No, sir; if I did I don't know it.
Q. You never heard of article 14 of that treaty? — ^A. I don't understand.
Q. You don't know anything about it? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Article 14 of the treaty of 1830 provided that if any of the Choctaw In-
dians living in Mississippi in 1830 did not desire to remove to the Indian Territory
in 1833 when the Choctaw tribe was moved here by the United States Govern-
ment, that they might remain there and receive land from tlie United States
Government, but if they so elected to remain, article 14 provided that thej
should notify the United States Indian agent in Mississippi at that time of
their intention to remain in Mississippi and become citizens of the United
States. That is. substantially, the law. You say you have not heard of that
law? — ^A. No, sir. I have got no education and can't read; just what I hear
is what I get.
Q. I want to ask you the name of your ancestor who lived in Mississippi
in 1830. — ^A. Explain that ancestor.
Q. I mean by the word ancestor, some kin of yours from whom yon ara
lineally descended, who lived in Mississippi in 1830?— A. Some kin? Outside
of my father and mother, I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether your father lived in Mississippi in 1830? — A, No,
sir; I don't.
Q. Do you know the name of your father's father or your mother's father,
tliat is, your grandfather on your father's side or on your mother's side? —
A. No, sir.
Q. VThat is the name of your father? — ^A. Patterson,
Q. Yes; his full name? — A. James Patterson.
Q. Do you know whether James Patterson lived in Mississippi in 1830?—
A. No, sir; I don't.
Q. And you don't know the names of any of their ancestors? — ^A. No, sir*
Q. Never heard about your father's father being an Indian? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Or your mother's father being an Indian? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear that your father was an Indian? — ^A. I have heard him claim
that he was an Indian.
Q. When did he die?— A. My father? My father is not dead that I know of.
d He Is not dead?— A. No.
Q. VThen was he bom?— A. I don't know tliat.
Q, I thought you said a little while ago that you didn't know whether he
was living or dead? — A. I didn't know whether he was living or dead at this
time, he was alive the last time I have heard from him.
Q. You have not heard from him or seen him very recently? — A. I have not
heard from him since along in August.
Q. And where was he then? — A. He was in the Chickasaw Nation.
Q. Do you know whether your ancestor removed from Mississippi to th«
Indian Territory at the time the Choctaw Tribe were moved here by the
United States Government from 1833 to 1837?— A. No, sir; I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether your ancestor, within six months after the ratifl-
cation of the treaty of 1830, signified to the United States Indian agent of thtt
Choctaw Indians In Mississippi, his intention to remain in Mississippi and
become a citizen of the United States? — A. No, sir; I don't know.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE OIVIUZBD TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 45&
Q. Have you any documentary evidence sbowing that your ancestor ever
ccmiplled in any manner with the provisions of the fourteenth article of the
treaty of 1830?— A. No, sir; I have not
Q. Bid any of your ancestors ever claim or receive land in Mississippi as
beneficiaries under the provisions of the fourteenth article of the treaty of
188D? — A. I don't know.
Q. Have either you or any of your ancestors ever received any benefits in
Indian Territory as Choctaw Indians? — ^A. I have two brothers.
Q. Did they ever receive any benefits in Indian Territory as Choctaw In-
dians?— ^A. They claimed and were, they told me that they were enrolled.
Q. Enrolled?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are their names?- A. Walter and Jim Patterson.
Q. They claim to be enrolled as members of the Choctaw Tribe? — ^A. No;
they claim to be enrolled by adoption.
Q. By adoption?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you married ?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your wife's name? — ^A. Mary Patterson.
Q. Have you any children?— A. I have one.
Q. What is her name? — A. Nolar.
6. Is this a girl or a boy?— A. Girl.
Q. How old is she?— A. The 8th day of next month she will be 10 years old*
Q. This is all the children you have?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you make application for your wife or not, or simply for the child
and yourself and the child? — A. Myself and the child.
Q.' Is Noiar, this child of yours, the child of Mary Patterson? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are the father? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. The basis of this child's claim is the same as yours, claiming through you,
and yon through your ancestor? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you your marriage license and certificate that you wish to file now
with the commission? — ^A. No. sir; I haven't.
Q. Would you like time in which to file it? It is necessary for you to file
this in support of your claim for the child, either the marriage license and
certificate or a certified copy? — ^A. I would like to have time.
Q. Have you any documentary evidence which you would like to submit now
in support of your claim? Any evidence in writing that you would like to put
in now? — A. I have none.
Q. Would you like a little time in which to file evidence? — ^A. I don't under-
stand how that is.
Q. Would you like a little time to look up the matter of testimony or evidence
and send to the commission within a certain period from the date of thls^
bearing, such evidence as you may look up?— A. Yes, sir, I would.
Twenty days' time from the date hereof Is given the applicant in which to file
such documentary evidence as he may wish to produce In support of his appli-
cation and also to file his marriage license or certificate or a certified copy
thereof.
Q. Is there anything further you would like to say in support of your claim
that you think of? — ^A. Well, I would like to have my evidence sent up to where
that I could get a new hearing If it is necessary.
Q. Yes, sir; you would like to have it sent to the Secretary of the Interior
for bis final review and action?— A. I would like to have that done If you please.
Q. Have you a witness here that you would like to have testify In this case? —
A. None but my brother ; he will testify that I am his brother.
Henry Patterson, being called and sworn as a witness, testifies as follows
on bdmlf of the applicant :
Examination by the Commission :
Q. Now, Mr. Patterson, you can make any statement in behalf of your brother
that you wish. — ^A. Well, he is my own brother, has the same father and the
same mother that I had.
Q. What is your father's name?— A. J. M. Patterson.
Q. And your mother's name?— A- Sarah.
Q. And through which one of your ancestors do you make your claim? You
have appeared before the commission? You have made your claim? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your claim through which parent? — ^A. My mother.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
460 FIVE CIVIUZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Do you remember her ancester who lived in Mississippi in 1890? — A. No,
sir ; unless it was my father ; he is 84 years old.
Q. I thought you said you claimed through your mother? — ^A. Well, I do.
Q. Through your mother's mother? Well, what did you say? — ^A. My mother's
mother was a full blood.
Q. You claim that your ancestor who lived in Mississippi was your grand-
mother— ^your mother's mother? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was her name? — ^A. McQuaters. She married a man by the name of
McQuaters. You mean my grandmother?
Q. I mean your ancestor who lived in Mississippi? — ^A. McQuaters.
Q. You don't remember her given name? — ^A. No, sir; if my father ever told
me, I don't remember now.
Q. And this applicant is your brother? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Having the same father and mother? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the basis of his claim is the same as yours? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Anything further you would like to state? — ^A. He don't recollect about
where he was bom ; he was born in Rankin Ck)unty, Miss. — Brandon.
Q. How much older are you* than he? — ^A. Let's see; I am 46, and he is 38.
Q. You were 8 years older and you remember when he was bom? — ^A. Yes, sir.
The decision of the commission in regard to this claim which you make for
identification as a Mississippi Choctaw for yourself and child will be mailed
to you at your present post-office address.
Anna Bell, having been first duly sworn, on her oath states that as stenogra-
pher to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, she reported In full. all
proceedings had in the above-entitled cause on January 12, 1901, and that the
above and foregoing is a full, true, and correct transcript of her stenographic
notes in said cause on said date.
Anna Bktt..
Subscril)ed and sworn to before me this 22d day of January, 190L
[SEAL.] Chablbs H. Sawyi», Notary Public,
Exhibit B.
Dftabtment of the Intebiob,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tbibes,
Muskogee, Jnd. T., May 9, 1902.
In the matter of the application of Maggie Lee Glance for the identification
<rf herself and her eight minor children, Vada Glance, Ollle Glance, Walton
Glance, Dora Glance, Wiley Glance, Jake Glance, Ella Glance, and Gilbert
Glance, as Mississippi Choctaws.
No attorney for applicant
Maggie Lee Glance, after being duly sworn, testified as follows :
Examination by the Commission:
Q. What is your name? — ^A. Maggie Lee Glance.
Q. What is your age?— A. I am 38.
Q. What is your post office?— A. Rolf, Ind. T.
Q. How long have you lived there? — ^A. Six years.
Q. Wheie did you live before you came there? — ^A. McAlester.
Q. How long have you lived in Indian Territory? — ^A. Fourteen years.
Q. Where did you live before you came to the Indian Territory? — ^A. In North
Carolina.
Q. Where were you bom? — ^A. In Mississippi.
Q. Do you know where in Mississippi you were born? — A. I think it was in
Brandon County.
Q. How long did you live in Mississippi ? — ^A. I don't remember.
Q. Where did you go from there?— A. To Texas.
Q. Is your father living? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is your mother living?— A. No, sir.
Q. What is your father's name? — ^A. James Patterson.
Q. What is your mother's name? — ^A. Sarah Patterson.
Q. She did not marry again, did she?— A. No, sir.
Q. Through which parent do you claim?— A. My mother.
Q. How much Choctaw blood do you claim? — ^A. One-fourth.
Q. Has your mother ever been recognized in any way or enrolled as a Choc-
taw citizen in Indian Territory?— A. No, sir.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
HVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 461
Q. You are married? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your hu8baiid*s full name?— A. Hunter A. Glance.
Q. Is he a white man or a Choctaw Indian? — A. He is a white man.
Q. you do not make any claim for him? — ^A. Xo, sir.
Q. How many children have you living? — A. Eight.
Q. Are they all under 21 and unmarried?— A. All but one; I have one of age
and seven under age.
Q. Give me the oldest one under age?— A. Vada Glance.
Q. These are all children by your husband, Hunter A. Glance, are they?—
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old is Vada? — A. Twenty years old.
Q. What is the name of the next one?— A. Ollle Glance.
Q. How old is Ollie? — ^A. Seventeen years old.
Q. What is the name, of the next one? — ^A. Walton Glance.
Q. How old?— A. Sixteen.
Q. Next?— A. Dora Glance.
Q. How old?— A. She Is 13 years old.
Q. Next?— A. Wiley Glance.
Q. How old Is he?— A. Eleven.
Q. Next?— A. Jake Glance.
Q. How old? — ^A. Four years old.
Q. Next?— A. Ella Glance.
Q. How old? — A. Four years old.
Q. Are they twins? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Next?— A. Gilbert Glance.
Q. How old is he?— A. One year old.
Q. Do you make claim for yourself and these minor children? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are eight, then, under 21 years of age, Instead of seven, as you first
stated?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is your name or the names of any of your children on the tribal rolls of the
Choctaw Nation In Indian Territory? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever make application for citizenship to the Choctaw tribal au*
thoritles or to the United States authorities In Indian Territory?— A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever made application for citizenship for yourself and chlldr«i
in the Choctaw Nation to the Dawes Commission? — ^A. I have made application
to the Dawes Commission.
Q. When did you make application?— A. In 1900, on July 12.
Q. You made application at that time as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, and also for seven minor children, did you not? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your child Gilbert has been bom since that application? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was done with the application you made at that time? — ^A. I was not
admitted.
Q. Did you get any word from the commission as to whether you were ad-
mitted or rejected? — ^A. I got word that I was refused.
Q. Didn't you get a letter from the commission, addressed to you at Roff,
Rtatlng that there was inclosed you a copy of the decision of the commission
regarding your application made at that time for the enrollment of yourself and
children as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation? Didn't you receive that
letter?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then. you did not get notice that you were refused admission as a citizen
of the Choctaw Nation? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you come before the commission claiming the right to identify yourself
and children as Mississippi Choctaws, claiming rights under article 14 of the
treaty of 1830?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you want all the papers filed and the application made by you In 1900
at Muskogee, Ind. T., to be made a part of the present application, which Is here
referred to as R-706?— A. Yes, sir.
The application of Maggie Lee Glance et al., made by her on the 12th day of
July, 1900, before the commission at Muskogee* Ind. T., and numbered R-700,
is here referred to.
Q. Do you understand article 14 of the treaty of 1880?— A, No, sir.
The treaty of 1880 was made between the United States Government and
fhe Choctaw tribe of Indians at a place in Mississippi called Dancing Rabbit
Creek, on the 27th day of September, 1881. The object of the treaty was to
remove all the Choctaw Indians, as far as possible, from the old Choctaw
Digitized by V^OOQIC
462 FIVE CmUZED TBJBES in OKIiAHOllA.
Nation east of the Mississippi River to the Choctaw Nation in Indian Tarrl-
tory; but before the treaty was signed it became known that a great many
Choctaw Indians would not go from Mississippi, and in order to protect the
interests of those who remained article 14 was drawn up and put into the
treaty.
That article reads as follows:
" Each Choctaw head of a family being desirous to remain and become a
citizen of the States shall be permitted to do so by signi^ng his intention to
the agent within six months after the ratification of this treaty, and he or
she shall thereupon be entitled to a reservation of one section of 640 acres
of land to be bounded by sectional lines of survey; in like manner shall be
•entitled to one-half of that quantity for each unmarried child which is living
with him over 10 years of age and 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 improvements of the head of the
family or a portion of it. Perscms who claim under this article shall not lose
the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, but if they ever remove are not to be en-
titled to any portion of the Choctaw annuity."
Q. Did any of your ancestors comply or attempt to comply with any of the
provisions of that article?— A. No, sir.
Q. What is the name of your Choctaw ancestor through whom you daim
•Choctaw blood?— ^A. Margaret Qaydon.
Q. What relation was Margaret Gaydon to you?— A. My grandmother.
Q. Did she live in Mississippi or Alabama in 1S30?— A. She lived in Alabama.
Q. In what county in Alabama did she live? — A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether she lived in tlie old Choctaw Nation? — ^A. I don't
know.
Q. Did she live in Alabama in 1830 and have a family there?— A. I don't
know.
Q. Can you give me the name of a Choctaw ancestor who lived in the old
Choctaw Nation in Mississippi or Alabama in 18dO?— A. No; I don't know
myself; my father is sick or he would have come with me. He knows, I
^ess.
Q. Is Margaret Gaydon as far back as you can go? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell me her father's name? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Do you claim through Margaret Gaydon? — ^A. No; through Sarah Gaydon.
Q. Can you go back any further than Margaret Gaydon, whose maidoi name
was — what was her maiden name? — ^A. McAuarters.
Q. Can you go back any further than Margaret McAuarters?— A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know how to spell that name? — ^A. M-c-Q-Ura-r-t-e-r-s is the waj
1 understand it
Q. She married a man by the name of Gaydon? — ^A. Yes; John Ckiydon.
Q. Can you give any more evidence as to Margaret Gaydon, as to where ebe
was born and where and wlian she died? — A. No, sir.
Q. How much Choctaw bk>od did she have?— A. One-half.
Q. Did you get all your Choctaw blood from that source?— A. No; my
father is a part Indian, and of course I get some from him. But of course I
iget all my Choctaw blood from her ; my fatther is not Choctaw.
Q. Have you other Indian blood besides Choctaw?— ^A. Yes; my father is
Seminole.
Q. But you are now claiming as a Mississippi Choctaw? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much Seminole blood have you? — ^A. About one-fifth.
Q. Do you think you have more Choctaw blood than Seminole?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did any of your Choctaw ancestors own any lands or claim any improve-
ments in Mississippi or Alabama under article 14 of the treaty of 1830?— A.
No, sir.
Q. Did any of your Choctaw ancestors go from that old Choctaw Nation
•east of the Mississippi River to the Choctaw Nation in Indian Territory with
other Indians between 1833 and 1838 '>— A. I don't know.
Q. Did any of your Choctaw ancestors go within siic monUis alitor the ratifi-
cation of the treaty of 1830 to the United States Indian ag;ent, Col. Ward, and
tell him that they wanted to stay, take lands, and become citizens of the States?—
A. I don't Isnow.
Q. Did any of your Choctaw ancestors receive any benefits under article 14
of the treaty of 1880?— A. No, sir.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIYS dYIUZBD TBIBE6 IK OKLAHOMA. 46S
Q. You can not tell the name of any of your Choctaw anceators who lived
In Mifisisslppi in 1890 and was at the head of a family there?— A. No. sir; I
doa't remember; I Just can remember leaving the State.
The Choctaw Indians who remained in the old Choctaw Nation after the
treaty of 1880 was ratified were required, if they wanted to take advantage
of any of the provisions of article 14 of the treaty of 1830. to go to the
United States Indian agent, Col. Ward, within six months after the ratifica-
tion of the treaty and tell him they wanted to stay, take lands, and become
C'ltiaens of the States. A great many Choctaw Indians did this whose name
Cot Ward failed to put upon his list, known as "Ward's register." His
neglect to do this caused a good many Choctaws in Mississippi to lose both
their lands and their Improvements, for both were taken from them by the
Crovemment and sold at its public land sales. This caused so many complaints
among the Indians that Congress, in 1837, by an a0t of March 3 of that year,
fkppointed a commission which Went to Mississippi and heard claimants under
article 14 of the treaty of 1830. In 1842 Congress appointed another commis-
sion by an act of August 23 of that year for the same purpose. Both commis-
aions wfflit to Mississippi and heard claimants under article 14 of the treaty
of 1880 and made lists of such names as came before them.
Q. Do you know whether any of your ancestors appeared before either of
those commissions claiming under article 14 of the treaty of 1880? — A. No, sir.
Q. Have you any other evidence other than the matter conttiined in your ap-
plication, R-70e, with you and which you want to present now? — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you ask for any time In whicjh to introduce other testimony? — ^A. No,
tir.
Q. Have you any relatives or kin who have applied to this commission to be
Idmitified as Mississippi Choctaws? — A. Yes; two brothers.
Q. What are their names? — A. Charlie Patterson and Willie Patterson.
Q. When did they appear before the commission? — A. I suppose it was in
February.
Q. Did they make applications as Mississippi Choctaws? — A. I think they did.
Q. You have presented here the sworn statement of J. M. Patterson ; do you
want this evidence introduced and made a part of the record in this case? —
A. Yes, sir.
The sworn statement of J. M. Patterson is received, filed, and made a part of
the record in this case, same being marked " Exhibit A."
Q. Do you speak or understand the Choctaw language? — A. No, sir.
A reasonable time will be allowed in which to introduce ofher evidence in
this case.
Q. Charlie Patterson has made application before this commission, has he? —
A Yes sir
Q. Did he make application for anyone but himself ?— A. I think he has two
children — I think so— but I have not seen them since they married.
Q. The application of Willie G. Patterson is referred to as No. 1272. Did he
make application for anyone else but himself ?— A. He has one child, I believe,
and its name is Nolio, I think.
Q. He gave the name of this child as Noiria?— A. That is it. That is the
flame child.
Q. The application of Henry Patterson is here referred to as No. 1271. Is
he a brother of yours? — ^A. Yes.
Q. He made application January 12, 1901, as a Mississippi Choctaw.—
A. That is my brother.
Q. Do you remember his age? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Has he any children?— A. I don't know the names of his children.
Q. He has applied for his children named Katie and Bertie.— A. I don't know
the names of his children.
Q. Who is James M. Patterson, who has applied here for identification as a
Mississippi Choctaw, No. M C R-1276?— A. He is my brother.
Q. Do you know whether he had any children — A. I don't know.
Q. These relatives of yours have made application to be Identified as Mlssts-
fllppi Choctaws; do you want your case considered with them and all others
claiming from the same common ancestor? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any other relatives, claiming through the same ancestor,
who have made application?— A. No, sir.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
464 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Your father has no Choctaw blood, has he? — A. No, sir.
Q. Your mother had the Choctaw blood?— A. Yes; my mother was part
Choctaw.
Q. Is your mother dead? — A. Yes; she is dead.
This applicant has the appearance and physical characteristics of being
descended from a mixed ancestry, composed of white and Indian blood. She
claims not only Choctaw blood from her mother's ancestry, but also claims
Seminole blood, but is not positive as to the quantity of Seminole blood. Her
color and the color of her eyes and hair show plainly the features and charac-
teristics of the Indian. The commission does not doubt that this applicant has
Indian blood; in fact, the Indian blood predominates, and there is no questicm
as. to her possession of Indian blood, but as to the quantity the commission is
unable to determine at this time. Her complexion is dark and her hair is that
of an Indian. She does not speak the Chocta^ language and has no knowledge
of any compliance on the part of her ancestor with any of the provisions of
article 14 of the treaty of 1830.
S. A. Apple, being duly sworn, on his oath states that as stenographer to the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes he reported the proceedings in the
above application on March 9, 1902, and that foregoing Is a true and correct
report of the proceedings in the same.
S. A. Applk.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of May, 1902.
[8EAL.1 Charles H. Sawteb, Notary Public.
Exhibit C.
Depabtment or the Intebiob,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application of James M. Patterson et al. for identifica>
tion as Mississippi Choctaws, consolidating the applications of: James M.
Patterson, M. C. R., 1276; Henry Patterson et al., M. C. R., 1271; Willie G.
Patterson et al., M. C. R., 1272 ; Maggie Lee Glance et al., M. C. R., 5528.
decision.
It appears fnom the record herein that applications for identification as Mis-
sissippi Choctaws were made to this commission by Henry Patterson for him-
self, his wife, Lou, and his two minor children, Katie and Bertie Patterson;
by Willie G. Patterson for himself and his minor child. Noiar ; by Maggie Lee
Glance for herself and her eight minor children, Vada, OUie, Walton, Dora.
Wiley, Jake, Ella, and Gilbert Glance; and by James M. Patterson for himself
as an Intermarried Mississippi Choctaw, under the following provision of the
act of Congress approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stats., 495) :
"Said commission shall have authority to determine the Identity of Choctaw
Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under article fourteen of the treaty
between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded September twenty-
seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty, and to that end may administer oaths,
examine witnesses, and perform all other acts necessary th^eto and make
report to the Secretary of the Interior."
It also appears that all the said applicants, except Lou Patterson, claim
rights in the Choctaw land under article 14 of the treaty between thfe United
States and the Choctaw Nation concluded September 27, 1830, by reason of
being descendants of or having married a descendant of Margaret Gayd«j
(or Gaydon, n^ McQuaters), who is alleged to have been an one-quarter blood
Choctaw Indian, and to have resided in Mississippi in 1830; that the said
JjOU Patterson claims said rights by reason of being a descendant of Jim
Stevenson, who is alleged to have been an one-eighth blood Choctaw Indian;
and that the two minor children of the said Lou Patterson claim said rights
by reason of being descendants of both ttie above-named ancestors.
It further appears from the evidence submitted in support of said applicii-
tions, and from the records in the possession of the commission, that none
of said applicants has ever been enrolled by the C^hoctaw tribal authorities
as a member of the Choctaw Tribe, or admitted to Choctaw citizenship by a
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 465
duly constituted court or committee of the Choctaw Nation, or by the Com-
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes, or by a decree of the United States
court in Indian Territory, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved
June 10, 1896. (29 Stats., 231.)
It does not appear from the testimony and evidence offered in support of said
application, or from the records in the possession of the commission relating to
persons who complied or attempted to comply with the provisions of said
article 14 of the treaty of 1830, and to persons who heretofore were claimants
thereunder, that the said Margaret Gayden (Gaydon, n^ McQuaters) or an
ancestor less remote, or the said Jim Stevenson, signified (in person- or by
proxy) to Col. William Ward, Indian agent, Choctaw Agency, an intention to
comply with the provisions of said article 14 or presented a claim to rights
thereunder, or either of the commission duly authorized to adjudicate such
claims by the acts of Congress approved March 3, 1837 (5 Stats., ISO) and
August 23, 1842 (5 Stats., 513).
It is therefore the opinion of this commission that the evidence herein is In-
sufficient to determine the identity of Henry Patterson, Lou Patterson, Katie
Patterson, Bertie Patterson, Willie G. Patterson, Nolar Patterson, Maggie Lee
Glance, Vada Glance, Ollie Glance, Walton Glance, Dora Glance, Wiley Glance,
Jake Glance, Ella Glance, and Gilbert Glance, as Choctaw Indians entitled to
rights in the Choctaw lands under the provisions of said article 14 of the treaty
of 1830, and that -the applications for their identification as such should be
refused, and it is so ordered.
It is the further opinion of this commission that under the provision of law
above quoted no person is entitled to Identification as a Mississippi Choctaw
by marriage, and that the application of James M. Patterson for hims^f
as an Intermarried Mississippi Choctaw should therefore be refused, and it Is
so ordered.
Ck)M MISSION TO THE FiVE CIVILIZED TkIBES.
(Signed) Tams Bixby, Acting Chairman,
(Signed) T. B. Needles, Commissioner,
(Signed) C. R. Breckinridge, Commissioner,
MrsKOQEE, IND. T., February 7, J903,
John Pickens et al., Choctaws.
Commission, No. 579. United States court, No. 87.
^ September 7, 1896. Original application was made to the commis-
sion for the enrollment of John Pickens, James Pickens, George
Pickens, Andrew Pickens, John T. Pickens, Frank Pickens, Mary
Short (nee Pickens), Georgia Pickens, his children, Lula Pickens^
Walter Pickens, Annie Pickens, James Pickens, George L. Pickens,
Mary M. Pickens, Jessie L. Pickens, Florence Pickens, Virgia Pick-
ens, Fulton Pickens, Tolbert Pickens, Corrolton Pickens, Earnest
Pickens, Maud Pickens, OUie Pickens, Samuel E. Short, Thomas Z.
Short, Meadham J. Short, Georgie P. Short, Henry W. Short.
The evidence offered in support of the application consisted of —
(a) Verified application of John Pickens acknowledged August
29, 1896, in which he states that he is a son of James Pickens a
Choctaw Indian who moved to the Choctaw Nation in 1845 or 1846.
That the said James Pickens was the grandfather of the other appli-
cants, who are the children of the principal applicant, John Pickens.
Affidavits accompanying the petition are referred to in corroboration
of the allegations ot the petition.
(6) The affidavit of John T. Pickens, a resident of Wynnewood,
Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., dated August 15, 1896, in which he states
that he is a grandson of James Pickens a Choctaw Indian, a son of
John Pickens and Mary Pickens (n^e Jones), both of whom were
Choctaw Indians.
69282—18 30 Digitized by V^OOglC
466 FIVE CIVIUZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
(c) The affidavit of James Pickens, a resident of Elmore, Chick-
asaw Nation, Ind. T., that he is a son of John and Mary Pickens
(nee Jones), both Choctaw Indians by blood, and a grandson of
James Pickens.
(rf) Affidavits of James, Mary Short (n^e Pickens), Frank, An-
drew, and Georgia Pickens, stating they are all residents of the
Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation (the post-office address being given
in each case) ; that they are the children of John Pickens, son of
James Pickens, both Choctaw Indians ; that their father, John Pick-
ens, married Mary Jones, a Choctaw woman, who was their mother.
Their children are mentioned by name.
(e) The affidavit of Ed McGee, who states he was born in Mis-
sissippi and removed to the Choctaw-Chickasaw Nation among the
first Choctaws that removed and has resided in the nation con-
tinuously; that he knew James Pickens, father of the claimant in
Mississippi, and knew him to be a recognized Choctaw Indian by
blood; that he knows that claimant John Pickens is a son of the
said James Pickens ; that John married Mary Jones, a Choctaw In-
dian by blood.
(/) The affidavits of two other witnesses, Joe Freeman and S. P.
Perry, testifying to the same facts set out in the affidavit of Ed Mc-
Gee, but as these last two witnesses appear in the record of other
cases to have been "professional witnesses" their affidavits can be
given but slight credit.
It is shown by the American State Papers, volume 7 and volume
1, Court of Clamis Eecord, Choctaw Nation v. United States, pages
18, 168, 232, 287, 843, that the alleged James Pickens, grandfather
and great grandfather of the claimants herein, was one of the cap-
tains of the Choctaw Nation east of the Mississippi, was a signer of
the treaty of 1830, and a fourteenth-article claimant under saidtreaty.
It appears from Ward's register of those persons who were entered
by tne agent as desirous to become citizens of Mississippi under the
fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830, that on May 17, 1831, Capt
James Pickens, with four children under 10 years of age and two
children over 10 years of age, and John Pickens, with one child under
10 years of age, were duly registered by the agent. (Vol. 1, C. Cls.
Rec, Choctaw Nation v. United States.)
The evidence shows that all of claimants were residents of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations for many years prior to 1896.
December 2, 1896. The commission rendered its decision in words
and figures as follows, to wit : "Application denied."
From the decision or the commission appeal was taken to the United
States court, central district, Indian Territory, and on January 18,
1898, a judgment was entered nunc pro tunc as of August 80, 1897,
admitting all of said applicants to citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation.
Proceedings before the United States court as well as the judg-
ment therein entered are not found in the files of the commission.
The record in journal entitled " Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes, No. 2 ; Citizenship cases, p. 42, case No. 579, John Pickens v.
Choctaw Nation," after setting out the decision of the commission
denying claimants, contains the following entry :
From this decision the plaintiffs herein did, on January 29, 1897, appeal this
cause to the United States court, central district, Indian Territory, at South
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 467
McAlester. which court did, on January 18, 1898, enter of record a judgment
nunc pro tunc as of August 30, 1897, admitting to citizenship all of the above
applicants, thus reversing the decision of the commission.
December 17, 1902. Judgment of the United States court in this
cause vacated by decree of flie citizensliip court in " test case." The
case was never thereafter certified to the citizenship court for trial
and the claimants herein were denied enrollment by operation of a
decision in a case to which they were not parties.
September 15, 1898. Andrew Pickens, who had been enrolled by
1'udgment of the United States court, applied to the commission at
^auls Valley for the enrollment of himself and children. The ap-
plication is stamped " Enrolled."
During the years 1898 and 1899 the other court judgment claim-
ants appeared before the commission when in the field and made
similar application to that made by Andrew Pickens for the enroll-
ment of themselves and children. The applications were stamped
"Enrolled."
December 3, 1904. Decisions were rendered by the commission
denying all the claimants because of the decree of the citizenship
court in the " test case " entered December 17, 1902, by the depart-
ment, which was held to be final and unreviewable, as will appear
from the copies of said decisions hereto attached.
It thus appears that these claimants were denied enrollment solely
because of the decree of the citizenship court in the " test case," to
which proceedings they were not parties, and which vacated and set
aside the judgment of the Unit^ States court admitting them as
citizens of the Choctaw Nation by blood.
Applications were submitted to the commission between 1898 and
1905 tor the enrollment of the following new-bom children :
Minor children of John T. Pickens: James Pickens, John Pickens,
jr., Mary Pickens.
Minor children of James Pickens: Andrew Pickens, jr., Ethel
Pickens.
Minor children of Andrew Pickens: Bessie Pickens, Carl Edmond
Gaines, grandson of Andrew and son of Florence.
Minor children of Frank Pickens : Zonie Pickens, Frankie Pickens,
William Edcar Pickens, Mary E. Pickens, Choctaw card. No. 5010,
Sherman Pickens, Choctaw.
Counsel for claimants I'espectfuUy submit that tlie following
claimants are entitled to enrollment:
Admitted by judgment of the United States court : James Pickens,
George Pickens. Andrew Pickens, John T. Pickens, Frank Pickens,
Mary Short (nee Pickens), George Pickens, his children, Lula Pick-
<dis, Walter Pickens, Annie l*ickeiis, James Pickens, George L.
Pickens, Mary M. Pickens, Jessie L. Pickens, Florence Pickens,
Virgie Pickens, Fulton Pickens, Tolbert Pickens, Corrolton Pickens,
Earnest Pickens, Maud Pickens, OUie Pickens, Samuel E. Short,
Thomas Z. Short, Meadham J. Short, Georgie P. Pickens, Henry W.
Pickens.
New boms for whose enrollment applicaitions were made to the
commission within the time prescribed by law and therefore entitled
to enrollment : Dora Pickens, James Pickens, John Pickens, jr., Mary
Pickens, Andrew Pickens, jr., Ethel Pickens, Bessie Pickens, Zonfe
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
468 FIVE CrVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Pickens, Frankie Pickens, Win. Edcar Pickens, Carl Edmond Gaines,
Mary E. Pickens, Sherman Pitkens, John Pickens, jr.
Note.— John Pickens, principal applicant in 1896, is now dead, and
no claim is made for his enrollment.
Exhibits attached.
(37 in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
BaLLTNGER & LiEE.
Department of the Intebiob.
(Commission to the F^ve Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the ehroUment of Andrew Pickens and his
six children, Florence Gaines (n^ Piclcens), Vlrgie Plclcens, Fulton PiekenB,
Tolbert Piekeu«. CarJton Pickens, and Bessie Pickens, and his grandchild,
Carl Edmond Gaines, as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
It appears from the records of the commission that on September 7, 1«9«»
In the case entitled "John Pickens et al. v. Choctaw Nation" (1896 Choctaw
citizenfihip docket, case No. 579) original application was made to tlie cwn-
mission under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896
(29 Stata, 321), for the admission to citizenship in the CTioctaw Nation of the
applicants, Andrew Pickens. Florence Gaines, Vlrgie Pickens, Fulton Pickens,
Tolbert Pickens, and Carlton Pickens, and on December 2, 1896. the said
Andrew Pickens. Florence Gaines, Vlrgie Pickens, Fulton Pickens, Tolbert
Pickens, and .Carlton Pickens were, by the commission, denied admission to
citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. From this decision of the commission an
appeal was taken to the United States court for the central district of Indian
Territory, which court, in the case ^itltled " John Pickens et al. v. Choctaw
Nation" (citizenship case No. 87), reversed the decision of the commission
denying said Andrew Pickens. Florence Gaines, Vlrgie Pickens, Pulton Pickens.
Tolbert Pickens, and Carlton Pickens admission to citizenship hi the Choctaw
Nation, and admitted said Andrew Pickens, Florence Gaines (as Flor«ice
Plckois), Vlrgie Pickens, Pulton Pickens, Tolbert Pickens, and Carlton Pickens
(as Carrolton Pickens) as citizens by blood of said nation.
The applicants, Bessie Pickens and Carl Edmond Gaines, werelwm subsequent
to the date of the original application made herein to the commission in 1896.
Said Bessie Pickens is identified as being a daughter of Andrew Pickens aad
Milloe Pickens, a noncltlzen. and said Carl Edmond Gaines as being a son of the
applicant. Florence Gaines, and W. P. Gaines, a noncltlzen.
It furthers appears from the records In the possession of the commission
that on December 17, 1902, the Choctaw and Chickasjiw citizenship court,
created by the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (82
Stats., 641), " s^ aside, annulled, vacated, and held for naught*' the aforesaid
judgment of the United States court for central district of Indian Territory.
Said cause has not been appealed or certified to the said Choctaw and Chicka-
saw citizenship court for a trial de novo, within the time prescribed by the
provisions of said act of Congress approved July 1, 1902.
In accordance with the opinion of th^ Acting Attorney General, dated May
9, 1904 (I. T. D., 3824-1904), and the opinion of the Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral for the Department of the Interior, dated July 30, 1905 (I. T. D., 5246-
1904), the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes is without authority to
take any action of any character, looking to the enrollment of Andrew Pickens*
Florence Gahies, Vlrgie Pickens, Fulton Pickens, Tolbert Pickens, Carlton
Pickens, Bessie Pickens, and Carl Edmond Gaines as citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Nation, and it is therefore hereby ordered that the application for the
enrollment of Andrew Pickens, Florence Gaines, Vlrgie Pickens, Fulton Picktos,
Tolbert Pickens, Carlton Pickens, Bessie Pickens, and Carl Edmond Galaes ts
citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation be dismissed.
Commission to the Five C^vilibed Tbbbw.
, Chairman,
Muskogee, Ind. T., December 9, 1904^
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBCBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 469
Depabtment of the Intbbiob,
Commission of the Five Chilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Frank Pickens and his
children, Zonia Pickens, Frankie Pickens, and William Edcar Pickens, as
citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
It appears from the records of the commission that on September 7, 1896,
in the case entitled "John Pickens et al. v. Choctaw Nation" (1896 Choctaw
citizenship docket, case No. 579), original application was made to the commis-
sion under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896 (29
Stat., 321), for the admission to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation of the
applicant, Frank Pickens, and on December 2, 1896, the said Frank Pickens
was, by this * commission, denied admis^on to citizenship in the Choctaw Na-
tion. From this decision of the commission an appeal was taken to the United
States court for the caitral district of Indian Territory, which court. In the
case entitled "John T. Pickens, et al. v. Choctaw Nation" (citizenship case,
No. 87) reversed the decision of the commission denying said Frank Pickens
admission to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation and admitted said applicant as
ft citizen by blood of said nation.
The applicants, Zonia Pickens, Frankie Pickens, and William Edcar Pickens,
are the children of the applicant, Frank Pickens, and Mary Pickens^ a noncltl-
xen, and were bom subsequent to the date of the original application made
herein to the commission in 1896.
It further appears from the records In the possession of the commission that
on Deceml)er 17, 1962, the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, created
by the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641).
"set aside, annulled, vacated, and held for naught" the aforesaid Judgment
of the United States court for the central district of Indian Territory. Said
cause lias not been appealed or certified for a trial de novo within the time
prescribed by the provisions of said act of Congress approved July 1, 1902.
In accordance with the opinion of the Acting Attorney General, dated May 9,
1904 (I. T. D. 3824-1904), and the opinion of the Assistant Attorney (General for
the Department of the Interior, dated July 30, 1904 (I. T. D. 5246-1904), the
Oommission to the Five Civilized Tribes is without authority to take any action
of any character looking to the enrollment of Frank Pickens, Zonie Pickens,
Frankie Pickens, and William Edcar Pickens as citizens by blood of the Choc-
taw Nation, and it is therefore hereby ordered that the application for the en-
rollment of Frank Pickens, Zonie Pickens, Frankie Pickens, and William Edcar
Pickens as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation be dismissed.
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
, Chairman.
0 Muskogee, Ind. T., December 5, 1904*
Department of the Interior,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of John T. Pickens and his
five minor children. Earnest Pickens. Maud Pickens, James Pickens, John
Pickens, Jr., and Mary Pickens, as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
It appears from the records of the commission that on September 7, 1886,
In the case entitled "John Pickens et al. v, Choctaw Nation" (1896 Choctaw
citizenship docket, case No. 579), original application was made to the com-
mission under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896
(29 Stat., 321), for the admission to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation as citi-
zens by blood of the applicants, John T. Pickens, Earnest Pickens, and Maud
Pickens, and on December 2, 1896, the said John T. Pickens, Earnest Pickens,
and Maud Pickens, were, by this commission, denied admission as citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation. From this decision of the commission an
appeal was taken to the United States court for the central district of Indian
Territory, which couri, in the caso entitled *' John T. Pickens et al. v. Choctaw
Nation" (citizenship case. No. 87), reversed the decision of the commission
denying said John T. Pickens, Earnest Pickens, and Maud Pickens admission to
citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, and admitted said John T. Pickens. Earnest
Pickens (as Earnest Pickens), and Maud Pickens, as citizens by blood of said
nation.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
470 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The applicants, James Pickens, John Pickens, jr., and Mary Pickens, are the
offspring of the principal applicant, John T. Pickens, and Mary R. Pickais,
noncltlzen, and were bom subsequent to the date of the original application
herein made to the commission in 1896.
It further appears from the record in the possession of the commission that
on December 17, 1902, the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, created
by the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641),
"set aside, annulled, vacated, and held for naught" the aforesaid judgment
of the United States court for the central district of Indian Territory. Said
cause has not been appealed or certified to the said Choctaw and Chickasaw
citizenship court for a trial de novo within the time prescribed by the provisions
of said act of Congress approved July 1, 1902. ^
In accordance with the opinion of the Acting Attorney General, dated May 9,
1904 (I. T. D. 3824-1904), and the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General
for the Department of the Interior, dated July 30, 1904 (I. T. D. 5246-1904),
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes is without authority to take any
action of any character looking to the enrollment of John T. Pickens. Ernest
Pickens, Maud Pickens, James Pickens, John Pickens, jr., and Mary Pickens,
as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and it is, therefore, hereby ordered
that the application for the enrollment of John T. Pickens, Ernest Pickens,
Maud Pickens, James Pickens, John Pickens, jr.; and Mary Pickens as citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation he dismissed.
Commission to thk Five Civilized Tribes.
, Chainnan.
Muskogee, Ind. T., December S, 190^,
Depositions of EJlsie Perkins, Henry M. Perkins, Levina Frankun, . and
John M. Hodges.
Taken on the 9th and 10th days of July, 1897, between the hours of 8 o'clock
a. m. and 6 o'clock p. m., at the office of Ralls Bros., in Atoka, within the central
judicial district of the Indian Territory, to l>e read as evidence in an action
between John T. Pickens et al., plaintiffs, and Choctaw Nation, defendants,
pending in the United States court for the central district of the Indian Terri-
tory, at South McAlester.
In the United States court for the central judicial district of the Indian
Territory. April, 1897, term, at South McAlester.
(87) John T Pickens et al., plaintiffs, v, Choctaw Nation, defendants. Notice
to take depositions.
To the Choctaw Nation, the above-named defendant, and Stewart, Gordon d
HaUey, and William M. Cravens, attorneys of record for the said above-named
defendant:
You are hereby notified that the depositions of witnesses to be read In evi-
dence In the above-entitled cause on the part of plaintiffs will be taken at the
office of Ralls Bros., in the town of Atoka, in the central judicial district
of the Indian Territory, between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon and 6
o'clock in the afternoon, on the 9th day of July, A. D. 1897, and that the taking
of said deiwsltions, if not completed on that day, will be continued from day
to day at the same place and between the same hours until completed.
Ranton & McFerren,
Ralls Bros.,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs,
South McAlester, Ind. T., July 6, 1897,
Service of the above notice is hereby waived.
Stuart, Gordon & Hailey,
Attorneys for the Defendant,
(Indorsed on back :) 87. John T. Pickens et al. v, Choctaw Nation. Notice
to take depositions. Atoka, 9th.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 471
Deposition of Elsie Perkins, taken at the office of Rails Bros., in the town
of Atoka, Ind, T., on the 9th day of July, 1897, hetween the hours of 8
o'clock in the forenoon and 6 o'clock in the afternoon, h) he read as evidence
in the cause of John Pickens v, Choctaw Nation.
My name is Elsie Perkins; I am 72 years old. I was bom in the State of
Mississippi and came to the Choctaw Nation with the second immigration of
Choctaw Indians to the Indian Territory. I located in Eagle County, Choctaw
Nation. I am a one-half blood Choctaw. I knew of Capt James Pickens in
the State of Mississippi while I lived there; he came to the Choctaw Nation
and I met him near Doaksville shortly after I came to the Indian Territory.
Capt James Pickens was a Choctaw by blood; I should say about one-half
breed like myself. I do not remember exactly how long it has been since I
came to the Indian Territory, but my son Henry knows. Capt. James Pickens
was a married man and had a family. I did not know his wife. He had the
following-named children that I remember: John Pickens, Campbell Pickens,
and Ben Picken& The children of Capt. James Pickens looked to be about
three-fourths Indian. John Pickens showed the Indian blood, but he was the
fairest of the children ; he looked to be about one-fourth Indian. Ben Pickens
held the oflSce of sherifl* of Blue County. My son Henry held the position of
deputy sheriff under him. Capt. James Pickens and his children were recog-
nised as members of the Choctaw Nation. John Pickens, the applicant, looks
like John Pickens, the son of Capt. James Pickens. I do not know the applicant,
nor do I know him to be the son of John Pickens, who Is the son of Capt. James
Pickens, but he resembles John Pickens, who is the son of Capt. James Pickens ;
from his resemblance to the Pickens family and his statements to me I believe
blm to be the son of John Pickens.
Witness — Chas. W. Dunstan.
£}lsie (her mark) Pebkins.
The taking of depositions in the above-named cause Is continued until 8
o'clock a. m., July 10, 1897.
Henry Perkins being introduced and sworn as a witness on the part of the
plaintiff, testifies as follows:
My name is Henry M. Perkins. I live at Caney, Blue County, Choctaw
Nation. I am going on 57 years old. I am the son of Mrs. E. Perkins. I have
lived at Caney about 38 years. I was born In the Indian Territory, In Blue
County, east of Atoka. My father was a half blood and my mother Is a full
blood; I am about three-fourths. Mother and I are recognized members by
blood of the Choctaw Nation. 3kfy mother came from Yazoo River. Miss., in
1833. I have known John T. Pickens since last year, and am not related to
him in any way that I know of. I knew Capt. Jnmes Pickens quite well. He
came from Mississippi with the Choctaw Immlgrnnts In 1845. He wns captain
of the Choctaw immigrants from Mississippi. Capt. James Pickens was one-half
blood Choctaw Indian. He was recognized as a member by blood of the
Choctaw Nation. I did not know his wife ; I knew most all of his children. The
oldest was John, the next Campbell, the next Litty, Rachel, Benjamin, and
Joseph. Somo of the children I have Just named looked to be about three-fourths
Choctaw Indians, and were recognized members of the Choctaw Nation. John
was the whitest of all the children. Ben showed about one-half blood Choctaw
r,nd John did not look to be half. I do not know where any of the Pickens boys
are at this time. Ben Pickens was sheriff of Blue County, Choctaw Nation,
Ind. T., and I was deputy under him. I do not know the plaintiff, John T.
Pickens, to be son of either of the above-named Pickenses, but he favors John
Pickens, the son of Capt. James Pickens; his face and eyes and motion of his
face look like said James Pickens. He favors Ben Pickens a little; not much.
The applicant knows all the Pickens family above referred to, and his history
of them agrees with my recollection of them.
Cross-examination by Mr. Gordon :
I first saw James Pickens in the Choctaw Nation In 1855. I can't judjre from
bis appearance how much blood he had. I never saw Capt. James Pickens's
father and mother. I never saw his wife; I did not know whether she was a
white woman or an Indian. I do not remember when he died. He had about
six children — John, Ben, Campbell, Litty, Rachel, and Joseph. Some time be-
tween 1850 and 1860 a report came that John Pickens was killed and that
Digitized by V^OOQIC
472 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
his parents could not find the corpse. John was a pretty rowdy fellow. I do
not know that he was married. I never heard of John Pickens until the appli-
cant, John T. Pickens/ spoke to me about him last winter. My understanding
ever since about 1857 has been that John Pickens was killed about that time.
Ben Pickens died about six years, and he was living In the Choctaw Nation at
that time. Campbell Pickens was killed about the year 1860 in Pickens
County, Chickasaw Nation. Al)out the time of the Civil War I heard tliat Joseph
Pickens was killed, and J have never have heard of his being alive since. These
Pickens boys were somewhere between 14 and 20 years old at the time Pickens
eame to this country. When I saw this applicant I recopnlzed him as being a
descendant of John Pickens aforesaid. I can't tell which one of the boys he
Is a descendant of. I never heard of John Pickens having a son. Before I
ever saw the applicant, John T. Pickens, John Hodges told me he was a
nephew of Ben Pickens. Jolm Pickens, the son of James, was a light-
complected man. a tall, slim fellow, dark hair, very white. In the year 1881
trouble en me up between the Mclaughlin and the Pickens families, and after
this trouble was over Ben Pickens and his family left, and, I understood,
moved to the Choctaw Nation.
Redirect examination by Mr. Ralls:
I do not know that the men were killed. The report reached me. The Choc-
taws and Chlckasaws were out with the Plckenses and favored the McTiaugh-
Ilna The applicant, John T. Pickens, looks more like John Pickens, the son
of Capt. James Pickens, than he does either of the oUier brothers, and re-
sembles Ben Pickens, but I can't say as to which one of the Pickens boys he
belongs. If either. If Joseph, Campbell, and John Pickens were not killed it
would not have been safe for them to remain In the Choctaw Nation or the
Chickasaw Nation. The Chlckasaws would have killed them because they
were Choctaws.
Levlna Franklin, being Introduced and sworn as a witness, testified as
follows :
My name Is I^vlna Franklin; I am about 63 years old. I live about 5 miles
on this side of Lehigh. I am a half-blood Choctaw Indian. I was raised at
Antlers. In the Choctaw Nation. My parents came from Mississippi to the
Choctaw Nation. I knew Capt. James Pickens Just as well as I knew my
grandfather when I was a girl. Said Capt. James Pickens was a half-blood
Choctaw Indian and was recognized as a member of said nation. I knew him
for about 25 years or .30 years. Capt. James Pickens came from Mississippi.
I do not recollect the time, as I was very small at that time. He had three
children. I know nothing about the smallest children he had. I moved out of
the Choctaw Nation Into the Chickasaw Nation. The names of the children
that I knew were John, Campbell, and Ben. I knew the above-named children
quite well; they were citizens of the Choctaw Nation. John was the fairest
of the children that I knew. Campbell got killed on Washita, in Chickasaw
Nation, and Ben died some 10 or 12 years ago; I do not recollect. It was
reported that John got killed. He was not killed, and went back to Mississippi
and stayed until everything died out and then came back. I did not know
anything about the trouble in the Chickasaw Nation only what I heard. I
have not seen John Pickens since he returned from Mississippi, but I hoard
he was up in the Chickasaw Nation. I do not know the applicant, but he
favors his father a great deal and resembles the family so much. About 16
or 20 years ago I heard that John Pickens went to Mississippi after his trouble
fn the nation, and I have not seen him since. Ben Pickens, who lived on Blue
Creek, in the Choctaw Nation, told me that John was not killed, but went
back to Mississippi. The Plckenses were pretty swift and the Choctaws and
Chlckasaws had It In for them. I am not related to the plaintiff and have no
Interest In the result of this case.
Cross-examination by Mr. Gordon :
About ?K) years ago Ben Pickens was a grown man, and I used to see him
frequently; we used to go to meeting together In the Choctaw Nation. John
never went over In the Chickasaw Nation. He lived until he came back from
Mississippi. We heard at the time of this trouble that the people were all out
hunting for him, and that they never did find him. I do not know that he
ever went to Mississippi, except from what I heard. I never saw the applicant
before to-day. He told me that he was the son of John Pickens. I had heard
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 473
that John had a sou, but I never knew him. James Pickens was a half-blood
Choctaw Indian, because he had white and Indian blood, and white and Indian
blood nmkes one-half Choctaw. When a full-blood Indian marries a white per-
son, the children are called half-breeds. I did not know how much Indian
blood Capt. James Pickens had except from what I have heard, and then I have
seen him. He looked to be about half-blood Indian. If a woman who is a half-
breed Choctaw marries a man who is a half-breed Choctaw, the children would
be half-breeds.
John Hodges, being introduced and sworn as a witness on the part of the
plaintiff, testifies as follows :
My name is John Hodges. My post office Is Atokfi. and I am 47 years old,
I was chairman of the net-proceed commission. The book containing the names
of all the citizens of the Choctaw Nation was placed in my hands by the Choc-
taw Nation. I have in my possession now a book supposed to contain the names
of' the citizens of the Choctaw Nation. I had a book which contained a roll
of the members of the Choctaw tribe In Indians.
Q. Was the name of James Pickens on that roll?
Defendant objects to this question, for the reason that the roll itself would
be the best evidence.
A. I do not recollect whether the name of James Pickens was on that book
or not
Tlie l>ook I hold in my hand is a book published by the authority of the
Choctaw Nation and the Indian agent.
This book that I hold in my hand contains names of all who are supposed
to be citizens of the Choctaw Nation. The book was made up from files at
Washington. Some of the names contained in this book are names of citizens
of the Choctaw Nation and not entitled to draw money.
Q. I will ask you if the name of James Pickens appears on this book.
This question objected to by the defendant, for the reason that this book.
has not been offered In evidence, and if it were offered It would not be com-
petent proof for the reason that the testimony of the witness shows some of .
the names thereon are names of persons not citizens of the Choctaw Nation, and
further that said book does not contain a list of names, made up from any act
of council of the Choctaw Nation.
A. The name of James Pickens appears on this book.
The book was published by order of the Indian agent. We had to have the-
book tQ pay off those who are entitled to money.
United States of America,
Central District of the Indian Territory:
I, R. M. Moore, a duly appointed and qualified notary public within and for
the central Judical district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify that the
foregoing depositions of Elsie Perkins, Henry M. Perkins, Levlna Franklin, and
^hu M. Hodges were taken before me in shorthand by Miss M. L. Humphry
and reduced to typewriting by her, and were read to and subscribed by them in
my presen(*e at the time and place and In the action mentioned In the caption, the
said Blsie Perkins, Henry M. Perkins. John M. Hodges, and Levlna Franklin
haTlpg been first duly sworn by me that the evidence they should give in the
action grfiould be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and
that their statements were reduced to writing by me in their presence, John T.
Pickens, one of the plaintiffs, in person and by G. T. Ralls, his attorney, and
the defendant in person and by J. H. Gordon, attorney, being present at the
examination. I further certify that J. H. Gordon wafe not present at the taking
of the deposition of Elsie Perkins, but was at the taking of the depositions o^
the other witnesses, and that It was agreed between the attorneys for the
plaintiffs and defendant that the testimony of the witnesses. Henry M. Perkins,
I^vina Franklin, and John M. Hodges be taken by Miss M. L. Humphry in
shorthand and afterwards to be reduced to typewriting, and when so done be
used without the signatures of said witnesses, all objections as to signatures
and reducing to writing being waived, I further certify that the deposition
of EJlsle Perkins was taken on the 9th day of July and the taking of deiiosl-
tlons was continued till the 10th day of July and the other depositions were on
that day taken.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
474 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Given under my hand and seal at Atoka, within the central judicial district
of the Indian Territory, this 23d day of July, 1897.
[seal.] R. M. Moore,
Notary Public aforesaid.
Notary fee, three witnesses, $5.
Paid by plaintiff.
R. M. MooBE, Notary Public
(Indorsed on back:) No. 87. John T. Pickens et al. t?. Choctaw Nation-
Depositions of Elsie Perkins, Henry M. Perkins, John M. Hodges, Levina Frank-
lin. Filed at — o'clock m., Jul. 24. 1897. E. J. Fannin, clerk, by ,
deputy. Ralls Bros. & McPherrln, Attys.
State of Oklahoma, Pittsburg County:
I, W. B. Riley, clerk of the district court in and for the above-named county
and State, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Is a full, true, and cor-
rect copy of the notice to take depositions, depositions of Elsie Perkins, Henry
M. Perkins, John M. Hodges, and Levina Franklin, and certificate of notary in
the case of John T. Pickens v. Choctaw Nation, as the same appears of record
and on file in my office.
Witness my hand and the seal of said court this, the 29th day of November,
1910.
[SEAL.1 W. B. Riley, Diatrict Clerk,
By L. Heflet, Deputy,
J. W. Sparks et al.
Commission, No. 82. United States court, No. 37. Choctaw-Chicka-
saw citizenship court. No. 40.
BECX)RD.
September 8, 1896. Application filed for the admission of J. W.
Sparks as an intermarried citizen of the Chickasaw Nation.
November 10, 1896. Decision of the commission admitting J. W.
Sparks " as an intermarried citizen, and Synthia Sparks, his daugh-
. ter, as a citizen by blood."
Case appealed to United States court, Ardmore, Ind. T. Record
before commission certified to court, and additional evidence taken
before master.
March 12, 1898. Judgment was entered aflSrming the judgment of
the commission, and admitting J. W. Sparks as a member of the
Chickasaw Tribe of Indians by intermarriage and Synthia Sparks as
a member of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians by blood. (Certified
copy of the judgment is hereto attached, marked " Exhibit A.")
December 17, 1902. Judgment of the United States court, affirming
the decision of the commission in 1896, vacated by decree of the
citizenship court in the test case.
• March 14, 1903. Case certified to Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship
court for trial de novo. J. W. Sparks and a witness by the name
of Fletcher appear before the court on May 27, 1904, and testified
as to the rights of the claimants. A certificate was offered in evi-
dence in words and figures following:
Department of the Interior,
CJOMMISSION TO THE FiVE CIVILIZED TRIBES.
I, Tarns Bixby, cbnirman of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, do
hereby certify that the name of Sarah Hughes appears on page 136 of the 1898
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILJZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 475
leased-district payment roll of the Chickasaw Nation, opposite No. 18 on said
page. •
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand at Muskogee, Ind. T.»
this May 26, 1904.
Tams Bixby, Chairman,
(Indorsed:) Citizenship court. Filed June 7, 1904. Jas. B. Cassada, clerk.
Sarah Hughes, referred to in the above certificate, was a Chickasaw
woman, originally married to Jackson Colbert, a well-known Chicka-
?aw residing in Tishomingo County. Jackson Colbert died, and on
August 26, 1880, Sarah intermarried with J. W. Sparks in accord-
ance with the Chickasaw laws, as appears from the following certifi-
cate of record :
Exhibit A.
I hereby certify that I have this day united In the holy bonds of matrimony
Mr. J. W. Sparks to Mrs. Sarah Colbert, of the C. N.
Glyen under my hand this the 16th day of August, 1880.
John E. Andebson,
C. d P. Judge, T. C. C. N.
Recorded August 26, 1880.
Certified to.
I, Edward Turner, county clerk of Tishomingo County, Chickasaw Nation^
do hereby certify that the above certificate, of marriage of Mr. J. W. Sparks to
Mrs. Sarah Colbert is true and of the original.
Given under my hand and seal this the 29th day of September, 1898.
[seal.] EiDWARD TUBNER,
County Clerk, T. C. C, N,
(Indorsed:) Citizenship court. Filed May 27, 1904. Jas. B. Cassada, clerk.
It is shown by the record that J. W. Sparks paid the Chickasaw
Nation for said license the sum of $50, and that Synthia Sparks is
the daughter of Sarah Sparks, n^e Colbert. Suteequently, and in
1882, J. W. Sparks and Sarah secured a divorce in the Chickasaw
courts, and J. W. Sparks has not since remarried. The evidence is
conclusive that J. W. Sparks and his daughter, Synthia, lived con-
tinuously in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, J. W. Sparks
since 1880 and Synthia from the da<e of her birth up to 1904, when
the case was tried before the citizenship court. Counsel for claim-
ants, Ballinger & Lee, state that they have since continued to reside
in and are now residents of the Chickasaw Nation.
November 28, 1904. The following opinion was rendered by Judge
Weaver and signed by all the members of the court:
In the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, sitting at Tishomingo, Ind. T.
J. W. Sparks et al., plaintiffs, v, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations,
defendants. On the Chickasaw docket. No. 40.
Weaver, J.
The plaintiffs in this case are J. W. Sparks and Cynthia Sparks, his daughter.
Sparks is a white man and claims his right to citizenship by reason of his
marriage with one Sarah Colbert who was the widow of one Jackson Colbert,
who was a recognized citizen of the Choctaw Nation. Said plaintiff afterwards
obtained a divorce from his wife, and she subsequently married a man by the
name of Hughes, from whom she separated, although there was no divorce, and
has since died.
There is some attempt made to prove that she was a Chickasaw Indian by
blood, but it was meager and unsatisfactory, and what there is of it shows that
Digitized by V^OOQIC
476 FIVE CIVILIZED TMBBS IN OKLAHOMA,
ber father was a white man and her mother a Cherokee Indian. Neither is
there any evidence before us tending to show that she or any of her people Imd
aver lived in the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations permanently until her marriage
. to Jackson Colbert.
So, as she was neither a Chickasaw by blood nor a " white person," she had
no rights as a member of the tribe by blood or by intermarriage with Colbert,
As she was not entitled to citizenship by blood, her daughter, Cynthia Sparks,
was not so entitled, Sparks being a white man ; and as she was not a " white
person,*' she took nothing by reason of her marriage with a Chickasaw, and
therefore she could not confer anything by reason of her second marriage, even
if she otherwise could, a question which it Is not necessary to pass upon in
this ease.
I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to citlxei^
ship or enrollment in the Chickasaw Nation, and Judgment will be r^idered
accordingly.
Walter L. Weaver,
Associate Jvdge.
We concur.
Spencer B. Adams,
Chief Judge,
H. S. Foote,
Associate Judge,
November 28, 1904. Decree entered denying J. W. Sparks and
Cynthia Spwirks citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation.
May 27, 1901. Barney SpjarkS appeared before the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes, sitting at Muskogee, and applied for en-
rollment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation by intermarriage wiUi
Cynthia Sparks, and for the enrollment of their minor child, Thomas
.Augustus Sparks. The record of his testimony at this hearing is in
part as follows :
Q» When did you marry Cynthia Sparks?— A. The 6tb of September, 1899, I
l»elleve. If I mistake not.
Q. Had you ever been married to her before that? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?— A. Married in August — the 14th of August — before that.
Q. Was that the first time you were ever married, the 14th of August, 1899? —
A. Yes, sir; the first time.
Q. Had Cynthia Sparks ever married before that? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. The marriage of the 14th day of August, 1899, was under United States
license? — A. Yes, sir.
• Q. Have you that marriage license and certificate? — ^A. Have I with me?
Q. Yes, sir.— A. No. sir.
Q. And on the 6th of September, of the same year, you were married to tb«
«ame woman under a Chickasaw license? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you marry her the second time? — A. It was her desire to be
married under Indian law.
Q. Why didn't you marry her under the Indian law at first? — A. Well, sir.
T was told that they didn't Issue any license.
Q. Who told you so? — A. I don't know as anyone at the present time. I heard
It talked of.
Q. Anyone that represented the Chickasaw Nation? — ^A. Just men talking.
Q. Did you make an attempt to marry under the Chickasaw law first? —
A. No ; I never made the attempt. I talked to my wife about It, and she said
that her father had said they wouldn't issue any license. So I just married
under the United States law.
Q. Have you your license and certificate under the Chickasaw law? — ^A. Yes.
Bir.
There is offered in evidence, filed and made a part of the record In this case,
a license issued by Simon Wolf, county and probate Judge of Pontotoc County
of the Chickasaw Nation, to Barney Sparks, a citizen of the United States, to
marry Cynthia Sparks, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation by blood. Also the
<.-ePtiflcate of Simon Wolf as to the marriage of Barney Sparks and Cynthia
Digitized by V^OOQlC
FIVE CIVILIZED TKffiBS IN OKLAHOMA. 477
Sparks of the 6th of September, 1890 ; the Bald marriage license and certificate
being recorded in the marriage records of Pontotoc Comity, Chickasaw Nation,
book C, pages 85 and 86, the 8th of September, 1899.
Q. How much did you pay for this license? — ^A. I think $50.
Q. Have you a receipt for it? — A. No, sir; I haven't.
Q. Are you and this woman living together now? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you any children? — ^A. I have one.
Q. What Is his name? — A. Tommle Augustus — Thomas Augustus.
September 22, 1902. There was filed with the commission a writ-
ten application for the enrollment of Charles William Sparks, bom
August 23, 1902, infant son of Barney and Cynthia Sparks.
January 27, 1905. Decision was rendered by the Dawes Commis-
sion, in words and figures as follows, to wit :
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Thomas Augustus Sparks
and Charles William Sparks as cltiziens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
The applicants, Thomas ^ugustus Sparks and Charles WUllam Sparks, claim
the right to enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation through
their mother, Cynthia Sparks.
The right of the applicants' mother, Cynthia Sparks (as Synthla Sparka
or Cynthia Sparks), to citizenship In the Chickasaw Nation having been ad-
versely determined by a decree of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court
of November 28, 1904, in case No. 40 upon the Tishomingo docket oX said court,
It is hereby ordered that the application for the enrollment of Thomas Augustus
Sparks and Charles William Sparks as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw
Nation be dismissed.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that as Sarah Sparks
was duly enrolled Chickasaw Indian, and intermarried according
to the laws of the Chickasaw Nation with J. W. Sparks, said union
resulting in the birth of one child, Cynthia Sparks, who duly and
lawfully intermarried under the Chickasaw laws with Barney
Sparks, bv whom she had two children, Thomas Augustus Sparlfs
and Charles William Sparks, and that as all of said persons have
cdntinuously resided in the Chickasaw Nation, as shown by the
record, and were denied enrollment by the citizenship court after
having received favorable judgments in the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes in 1896 and the United Stat^ court in 1897, and
were subsequently denied by the commission solely because of the
decree of the citizenship court, and in disregard of their rights as
shown by the records, that the following persons are in law, equity^
and good conscience entitled to enrollment:
J. W. Sparks, Cynthia l^arks, Thomas Augustus Sparks, Charles
William Sparks.
(4 in all.)
Judgment attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballingeb & Lee,
Digitized by VjOOQIC
478 FIVE OIVILIZBD TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
TBANBCBIPT OF PBOOEEDINGS.
United States Couet, Indian Territory ^ Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory*
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1807.
Present : The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court
On the 12th day of March, 1898, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
<37) J. W. Sparks et al., plaintiffs, v, Chickasaw Nation, defendanta Judg-
ment
This day this cause coming on to be heard, upon the pleadings, proof ex-
hibits, master's report, and the exceptions filed thereto; and the court, being
advised, is of opinion tliat the exceptions filed to the master's report herein by
the applicants should be, and the same are hereby, sustained, and the said
report is in all other respects confirmed ; and the court, being sufficiently advised
upon the whole case :
Doth order, adjudge, and decree that the applicant, J. W. Sparks, be and he
Is hereby admitted as a member of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians by inter-
marriage; and that the aiH>1icant Cynthia Sparks, be and she is hereby ad-
mitted as a member of the Chickasaw Tril>e of Indians by blood ; and that they
each and both have all the rights, privileges, and inmiunities as members of
the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians in the way and manner above indicated.
The clerk of this court is hereby ordered to transmit a certified copy of this
Judgment fb the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians for their
proper enrollment, which said commission is hereby directed to place their
names upon the roll made out by it for the Chickasaw Nation as members of
said tribe of Indians.
To this judgment the Chickasaw Nation excepts.
, Judge.
United States Coxtbt,
Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the
district and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders
are truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the
fiame appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the aeal of
said court, at Ardmore, this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
This is to certify that I am the officer having the custody of the records
X)ertaining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw,
Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the
land of said tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct
copy of a certified copy of the judgment of the court dated March 12, 1898, on
Ble in this office, in the matter of the petition of J. W. Sparks et al. for enroll-
ment as members of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five CivUieed Tribes,
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in Charge of Chickasaw Records,
Dated at Muskogee, Okla., this 14th day of October, 1910.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 479
consolidated cases.
Newt Askew et al.
Dawes Commission No. 2. United States court No. 72. Citizenship
court No. 1-T.
William Quint Askew et al.
Dawes Commission No. 1. United States court No. 71. Citizen-
ship court No. 2-T.
L. F. Bhoades et al.
Dawes Commission No. 59. United States court No. 128. Citizen-
ship court No. 89-T.
J. H. Hill et al.
Dawes Commission No. 1375. United States court No. — . Citizen-
ship court No. 6&-T.
J. M. Hill et al.
Dawes Commission No. 1366. United States court No. 149.
Ella Bennett et al.
Dawes Commission No. 869. United States court No. 49.
Choctaws.
All the applicants in this case, consisting of several branches of
the same family, claim their right to enrollment through Aaron
Askew, a half-blood Choctaw Indian, who lived in the State of Ala-
bama. Aaron Askew's father was a white man named Askew, and
his mother a full-blood Choctaw woman by the name of Frazier.
Aaron Askew had a large family, and of these Matilda Hill (nee
Askew^, Tom Askew, Murrill Askew, and Elizabeth Douglass (nee
Askew) are the ancestors of the present claimants. The other chil-
dren of Aaron Askew were Quint, Aaron, Eliza, Mary, Lovitt, and
Mose Askew, but, so far as the record shows, these persons either died
without issue or their descendants never removed to or made any
effort to claim whatever rights they may have had in the Choctaw
Nation.
It will be shown hereafter that some members of these families
were' admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by the United
States Indian agent, some by Indian court, as shown oy testimony,
and some by judgment of the United States court, and that a por-
tion of them are on the final rolls as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
RECORD.
September 7, 1896. Original application filed with the Commis-
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes (commission No. 1) for the en-
rollment of William Quint Askew, William Thomas Askew, George
Washington Askew, Thane Askew, Perry Askew, Sam Askew, Tom-
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
480 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
mie Askew, Lillie Askew, Martha Askew, Gilbert Askew, Lizzie
Askew, Sophia Askew, Mattie Askew, Ellen Askew, Tom Askew,
Bettie Askew, Dora Askew, as citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, except Martha and Dora, by intermarriage.
Original apolication on same date (commi^ion No. 2) for the
enrollment or Murrill Washington Askew, Reoecca Askew, Johnnie
Askew, Newton Askew, Nancy Malinev Askew, William Howard
Askew, Henry Edward Askew, Elizabeth Viola Askew, Dallas Alex-
ander Askew, Roxie Cordelia Askew, Mrs. May Catherine Brewer,
George Brewer, Elma Brewer, EJmma Brewer, Mrs. Mary Ellen
Jackson, Tom Jackson, Taylor Franklin* Jackson, Aimer Jackson,
Charlie Jackson, Roscoe Jackson, Mrs Martha Etta Turner, Marshall
A. Turner,ascitizensby blood, except Rebecca Askew, Nancv Maliney
Askew. George Brewer, Tom Jackson, and Marshall A. 'fumer, by
intermarriage.
Original application, on same date (c<immission No. 59), for the
enrollment of L. F. Rhoades, as a citizen by intermarriage, and Saul
P. Rhoades, Andrew O. Rhoades, Emmett L. Rhoades, Ella N.
Rhoades, Roberta Rhoades Olive, Thos. G. Olive, Jessie Lee Olive, as
citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
Original application (commission No. 1365^ on same date for the
enrollment of John Hill; Amanda Hill (nee Joiner), wife; Will
Hill; Lillie Hill, wife (nee Palmer); Fannie Hill Simpson; Vint
Simpson, husband; Ada Hill Bjckham; Cullie Bickham, husband;
Laura Hill Miles; Van (or C. E.) Miles, husband: Connie Hill;
Grover Hill, Swannie Hill, Myrtle Hill, Phillip Hill, Jewell HiU,
Ben C. Hill ; Adelia Hill, wife; Leona Hill, Bertha M. Hill, Wm. A.
Hill, Ray O. Hill.
Original application (commission No. 1375) filed on same date
for the enrollment of James H. Hill; Caroline Hill, wife; J. T. Hill;
Emma Hill; Annie Hill Stover; P. O.. Stover, husband; Theodore
Stover, Luther Stover, Lula Stover, Alice Stover, Olean Stover, Mag-
gie Stover, Hubert Stover, Lilly Stover.
Original application (commission No. 869), on same date, for the
enrollment of William Bennett; Ella Bennett (nee Martin), wife;
Ida Martin, sister of Ella Bennett; Maud Martin, sister of Ella
Bennett; Lela Ann Bennett, daughter of William and Ella Bennett.
October, 1896. Answer of the Choctaw Nation filed, in which it is
stated "' that there is no evidence that this claim has ever been dis-
puted by the Choctaw Nation."
December, 1896. Decision of the commission, denying applica-
tions of aU claimants for admission to citzenship in the Choctaw
Nation on various days during the month of December, 1896. *
Appeal was taken from the decision of the commission to the
United States court, southern district, Indian Territory, at Ardmore,
in all the above-named cases, except the case of Ella Bennett, in
which case appeal was taken to the central district, ' at South
McAlester.
The cases appealed to the United States court, southern district,
seem not to have been consolidated in that court, but the evidence
before the commission and additional testimony taken before the
master seem to have been considered together.
July 1, 1897. Master's report filed in the case of William Quint
Askew V. Choctaw Nation, No. 71, recommending admission to citi-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 481
zenship of William Quint Askew, son of Tom Askew, and the other
applicants in that case, except Martha, Betty, and Dora Askew, who
were found to be white persons and not entitled to citizenship.
On the same day exceptions were filed to the master's report in the
above case as to Martha, Betty, and Dora Askew, whose applications
were reported on adversely by the master.
Master's report filed on same date in the case of Murrill Washing-
ton Askew et al. v. Choctaw Nation recommends the admission of
applicants in that case — Murrill Washington Askew, Newt Askew,
sons of Tom Askew, and the other applicants — and reports adversely
as to George Brewer, Marshall A. Turner, and Tom Jackson, inter-
married.
On same date exceptions were filed to the master's report as to
George Brewer, Marshall Turner, and Tom Jackson, whose applica-
tions were reported on adversely by the master.
August 24, 1897. Judgment of the United States court, central
district, in the case of Ella Bennett et al.. admitting to citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation, as citizens by blood, the following-named per-
sons: Ella Bennett, Ida Martin, Maud Martin, Lela Ann Bennett,
and excluding William Bennett, who claimed as a citizen by inter-
marriage.
Certified copy of judgment attached hereto, marked " Exhibit A."
December 21, 1897. Judgment of United States court, southern
district, in the case of William Quint Askew et al., admitting to citi-
zenship in the Choctaw Nation, as citizens by blood, the following-
namea persons: William Quint Askew, William Thomas Askew,
George Washington Askew, Sam Askew, Mattie Askew, Ellen Askew,
Tom Askew, Thomas (Thane) Askew, Ferry Askew, Tommy Askew,
Lillie Askew, Gilbert Askew, Lizzie Askew, Sophia Askew.
The judgment also ordered that the case stand open as to Mada
Askew, Betty Askew, and Dora Askew, who are applicants for
admission as citizens by intermarriage.
Certified copy of said judgment hereto attached, marked "Ex-
hibit B."
March 12, 1898. Supplemental judgment of United States court,
southern district, admitting Martha Askew, Bettj Askew, Dora
Askew to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation as citizens by inter-
marriage.
Certified copy of said judgment hereto attached, marked "Ex-
hibit C."
December 21, 1897. Judgpent of United States court, southern
district, in the case of Murrill Washington Askew et al., admitting
to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation the following-named persons:
Murrell Washington Askew, Mrs. May Catherine Brewer, Mrs.
Martha Etta Turner, John Askew, Newt Askew, William Howard
Askew, Mary Ellen Jackson, Taylor Franklin Jackson, Alma Jack-
son, Charlie Jackson, Eoscoe Jackson, Henry Edward Askew, Eliza-
beth Viola Askew, Dallas Alexander Askew, Koxie Cordelia Askew,
Emma Brewer, Elmer Brewer, Mrs. Rebecca Askew, and Mrs. Nancy
Melinda Askew, and that the cause stand open as to George Brewer,
Marshall Turner, and Tom Jackson.
Certified copy of said judgment hereto attached, marked " Ex-
hibit D."
69282—13 31
Digitized by VjOOQIC
482 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAJaOMA.
The record does not show that any further action was ever taken
by the court as to George Brewer, Marshall Turner, aad Ton
Jackson.
December 22, 1897. Judgnjent of United States court, southern
district, aflirming master's report, and decreeing that Andrew O.
Rhoades, Samuel P. Rhoades, Emmett L. Rhoades, Ella N. Rhoades.
Mrs. Robert Olive, and Jesse Lee Olive be "a<&nitted and enrolled
as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians."
September 28, 1898. Order nunc pro tunc that L. F. Rhoades be
admitted and enrolled as a citizen by intermairiage of the Qioetaw
Nation.
The name of Thomas G. Olive is not mentioned in the court
judgment.
Certified copy attached marked "Exhibit E."
December 22, 1897. Judgment of United States court, southern
district, as shown by the record, admitting J. H. Hill, J. T. Hill,
Emma Hill, Annie B. Stover, Luther Stover, Lula Stover, Herbert
Stover, Alie Stover, Olion Stover, Mag^e Stover, Lillie Stov«-,
Theodore Stover, as citizens by blood, and F. O. Stover and CaroUne
Hill as citizens by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation.
Certified copy of judgment attached, marked " Exhibit F."
March 8, 1808. Judgment of United States court, southern dis-
trict, admitting J. M. Hill, Willie Hill, Sewell Hill, Fannie Simp-
son, Clyde Simpson, John Simpson, Grady Simpson, Ada Bickham,
CuUie Bickham, Laura Miles, Mable Miles, Myrtle Miles, Philip
Hill, Swanev Hill, Connie Hill. Jewell Hill Grover HiU, B. C. HUL
Albert Hill,^Leona Hill, Rav Hill, Bertha Hill, Mada Hill, by blood,
and Amanda Hill, and Adelia Hill by intermarriage.
Certified copy attached marked " Exhibit G."
January 15, 1900. Order nunc pro tunc correcting judgnient of
United States court of March 8, 1898, by striking therefrom the
names of Sewell Hill, Clyde Simpson, John Simpson, Grady Simp-
son, Mable Hill, Mada Hill, Albert Hill.
Certified copy marked " Exhibit H.''
December 17, 1902. Decree of citizenship court vacating judg-
ments of United States courts in " test case."
The records in the cases of William Quint Askew, Murrell Wash-
ington Askew, L. F. Rhoades, J. H. Hill, and Ella Bennett were cer-
tified to the citizenship court for trial de novo. There is notiiing in
the record to show that the case of J. M. Hill was ever certified to the
citizenship court. All the above cases were considered together by
the citizenship court.
September 19, 1904. Decree of citizenship court was rendered in
each of the above-named cases certified to that court, denying the
applications of all claimants for enrollment as citizens of the Choc-
taw Nation.
EVU>ENCE.
The evidence taken before the commission, before the master, and
before the citzenship court is veiy voluminous, and references will
be made, as may be necessar^\ showing before what tribunal the testi-
mony was elicited.
The affidavits and testimony of a large number of witnesses before
the commission, before the master, and before the citizenship court
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 483
iihow (and there is no evidence to the contrary) that all of the ap-
plicants herein are descended from and claim their right to enroll-
ineut through Aaron Askew, a half-blood Choctaw Indian, who
lived and died in the State of Alabama, and Eliza Askew, his wife, a
white woman ; that Aaron Askew was the son of Askew, a white
man, and Frazier, a full-blood Choctaw Indian woman. Ten
childly were .born to Aaron and Eliza Askew, but of that numbcar
»ix, with their descendaiits, do not appear as applicants. Those
whose descendants are applicants herein are Tilda (Matilda) Hill
(n^e Askew), daughter of Aaron Askew, who married Hiram Hill,
and is the ancestress of the applicants in the Hill cases ; Tom Askew,
son of Aaron Askew, who married Betty Blassingame, a white
woman, and is the ancestor of the applicants in the William Quint
Askew, Murrell Washington Askew, and Newt xVskew cases ; Murrell
Askew, son of Aaron Askew, who married Eliza Wri^^t, a white
woman, and who is the ancestor of the applicants in the Bhoades
case, and some of whose children and ^nindchildren appear upon
the final rolls of the Choctaw Nation; Elizabeth Askew, daughter of
Aaron Askew, who married Joe Douglass, a white man, and who is
the ancestrefes of the applicants in the Ella Bennett case.
M. Askew and B. B. Askew, sons of Murrill Askew and grandsons
of Aaron Askew, who are enrolled upon the final rolls of the Choc-
taw Nation, in their joint affidavit filed with the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes in the case of William Quint Askew et al.,
htate :
Onr iinnies are M. and Bailiis Askew; we are 43 years of age. Bnlliis Askew
Is 40 years of age, and our jmst-offlce address Is Ran, Ind. T. We know the
Iiarties that are api^lyinfc for eltisseuship and know tlieni to be relatives of
ouris. Our relationship is as follows: Our gi-andfatber, named Aaron Askew,
was one-half Choctaw Indian by blood. He hiarrled and had three boys by
his wife, named Tom, Mose. and Murrill. These boys were all full brothers.
Our father, whose name was Murrill Askew, was one of these boys. Tom Askew
had four children. They were Quint, Wash, Newt, and Mary. Quint has been
married twl^e and has several. children. Our father came to the Indian Terrl-
H'ry a uumber of y<»ars before any of the rest of the family did. In connection
with my brothers and sisters we prosecuted an application for citizenship to a
final Loarin?? and was admitted by the authorities of the Choc»taw Nation as a
citlisen and enrolled ni>on their roll book as such. We and all our brothei^s ami
Kisterg are citizens of the Choctaw Nation. We are i)osltive tJui't William Quint
Askew, who Is our first cousin, Is like ourselves — a one-ele:hlh Choctaw Indian
by blood. We do not know much about his children or his children's children.
Ihou^ we understand that there are several of them.
William Quint Askew, son of Tom Askew and grandson of Aaron
Askew, in his affidavit filed with the commission in his own case,
states :
My name is William (}iiint Askew; I am 66 years of ape, and my po«t-ot!ice
.iddress is I^banon, Ind. T. : I am one of the applicants for citizenship In the
ftbove-entitle<l cause.
I was bom and partly raised near Florence, Ala., and my father was Tom
Aakew, mud my mother was, t>efore marriage, named Hetty Blassluf^me. My
father always claimed to be one-fourth (Choctaw Indian by blood, whilst my
mother claimed to be a white woman. I have heard my father often speak of
beinjj: an Indian and of his intention of coming west and settling among them.
but he never did so: and on about 12 month of 1852 he died In Alabama. I
remained in Alabama until the year IHOl. when I moved to the Indian Territory.
My father had two brothers, named Murrill and Mose, whom I knew well. I
liave been to their hou.ses often and stayed with them. When a boy I went to
fsec my father's father; that is to say, my grandfather, who was named Aaron
Digitized by V^OOQIC
484 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Askew. My grandfather was a one-half Choctaw Indian by blood, and I lived
with him for a considerable length of time. He looked like an Indian and had
most of the ways of an Indian. He liad long, straight black hair and was of
dark complexion. He claimed himself to be a one-half Choctaw Indian, and all
the people in that community recognized him as such.
My uncle, Murrill Askew, moved away from Alabama into the Indian Terri-
tory a number of years before I left Alabama. When I came out here my
Uncle Murrill was dead. Prior to his death, however, he had filed an appli-
cation before the proper authority of the Choctaw Nation for admissionf to
citizenship in paid nation. Upon our arrival we assisted our Uncle Murriirs
children in prosecuting their application to successful conclusion. They estab-
lished their rights as Choctaw Indians before the proper authorities of the
Choctaw Nation and were vested with all the rights and privileges of a Choctaw
Indian by blood. I am a defendant of Aaron Askew, a common ancestor of us
all, and have the same amount of Indian blood as they (Murrill Askew^s chil-
dren). I am one-eighth Choctaw Indian and so are they.
Willis Howell, in his aflSdavit filed with the commission, states :
My name is Willis Howell; my age Is 66 years. I was raised in Alabama,
and my post-office address, Rockwall, Tex. I was raised in Alabama al>out 15
miles north of Florence and lived there until I moved West. In our neighbor-
hood back there was a half-blood Choctaw Indian, named Aaron Askew, who
was a prominent citizen, and whom I knew well. This Aaron Askew married
a white lady who was a citizen of the United States, but whose name I do not
remember, and by her had three children; namely, Tom Askew, Mose Askew,
and Murrill Askew. Murrill Askew moved away from there and came West.
He had married a United States citizen named Lizzie Wright, and by her had
several children. After MuiTiU's death I understand that his children applied
for citizenship in the Choctaw Nation and were admitted • • *.
They have always been considered Indians by blood by those who knew them,
and I know that they are legitimate descendants of Aaron Askew and are
one-eighth Choctaw Indians by blood.
Eliza Askew, n6e Wright, 73 years of age, wife of Murrill Askew,
who was son of Aaron Askew, in her testimony before the master^
states : That she is the wife of " the Murrill Askew that was admitted
to citizenship"; that she was acquainted with Aaron Askew and
lived not over 2 miles from him, in Lauderdale CJounty, Ala.; that
Aaron Askew claimed to be a Choctaw Indian and had the features
of a Choctaw Indian; that she was acquainted with Aaron Askew's
children — Tilda, Tom, Murrill, Elizabeth, Nute (Newt), and Wash
(Murrill Washington) Askew; that Aaron Askew claimed to have
one-half Indian blood and that her husband, Murrill Askew, was
one- fourth Choctaw; that Matilda Askew married Hiram Hill and
had several children ; that Elizabeth Askew married Joe Douglass.
(At this point in the testimony it seems as if the stenographer had
failed to transcribe a portion of same which referred to the children
of witness herself.) She then states that Cleopatra Askew was her
daughter, who married L. F. Rhgades.
Rebecca Askew, wife of Murrill W. Askew, in her testimony before
the master, states: That Eliza Askew, who just testified, is her sister;
that she was raised in Lauderdale County, Ala. ; knew Aaron Askew ;
that Aaron Askew was a Choctaw Indian ; that she lived about a mile
and a half from Aaron Askew ; that Aaron Askew died the first cm*
second year of the Civil War, when she was 26 years old; that
Aaron Askew married a white woman, and had children, Tilda,
Mary, Eliza, Elizabeth, Lovitt, Thomas, Murrill, Mose; that Murrill
Askew is the same one that moved to the Indian Territory, and his
children have been admitted to citizenship; that Tom Askew married
Betty Blassingame, and their living children are William Quint,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 485
Murrill Washington, Newton, and Mary; that Elizabeth Askew mar-
ried Joe Douglass, that one of their children was Leona Houghton
(nee Douglass), who was admitted as a citizen; that Matilda Askew
married Hiram Hill, but witness did not know all the children; that
J. H. Hill and Ann Stover are children of Matilda Hill ; that Murrill
Askew married Eliza Wright; that Murrill Askew had a daughter
by the name of Cleopatra, who married L. F. Rhoades; that Aaron
Askew, Murrill Askew, and Matilda Askew showed Indian blood,
and were recognized as Choctaws by blood by the people who knew
them.
Balis Askew states that he is son of Murrell Askew. Certified
copy of opinion of Indian court in the case of B. B. Askew et al. v,
Choctaw Jfation was exhibited to witness, showing admission to citi-
zenship in the Choctaw Nation of B. B. Askew et al. This certified
copy of opinion, however, is not with the papers in the case. He
testified :
Q. (By Mr. Cruce.) Have you any sisters besides these in the application? —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What Is her name? — A. Cleopatra Rhoades, the only one not in this
application
Q. Who did she marry? — ^A. Rhoades.
Q. Is she the only one of your sisters that is not admitted? — ^A. Yes*, sir.
Q. WTiere is she now?— A. Dead. * * ♦
Q. Do you know how it happened her name was not In the application with
the others? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How? — A. She was dead, and the children were not here.
Q. Where were they living? — A. In Alabama.
Murrill W. Askew, son of Tom Askew and grandson of Aaron
Askew, in his examination before the master states: That he mar-
ried Kebecca Wright and had the following children : Mary, Martha,
Delia, John; that Mary married George Brewer and had two chil-
dren, Emma and Elmer; that Martha married Marshall Turner.
He states further :-
Q. When did you come here? — A. Five years ago last fall. (The testimony
was taken March 17, 1897.)
Q. When did your brother, William Quint, come?— A. The next fall.
Q. Newt, brother of yours, when did he come? — A. The fall before I came.
Q. What was your Intention in coming to the Territory? — A. The intention
was to receive our rights.
Q. You came here in good faith to establish your Indian rights and became an
Indian citiscen and reside now In the Indian Territory? — A. Yes, sir.
M. Askew, in his testimony taken before the citizenship court,
states: That he is 51 years of age and a citizen of the Choctaw Na-
tion and member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians and enrolled as
Mich member; that his father was Murrill Askew and his mother
Eliza Wright; that he traces his Indian blood through his father,
Murrill Askew, and that Murrill Askew possessed one-fourth Indian
blood; that Murrill Askew traced his blood through his father,
Aaron Askew, who was a half blood ; that NcAvt, Quint, and Wash
are his first cousins, their father being Tom Askew, full brother of
Murrill Askew. He further states that he was bom in Lauderdale
County, Ala., in 1853 ; that he came with his father, Murrill Askew,
to the Chickasaw Nation in 1881; that his father was admitted to
citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by the United States Indian agent,
iipplication having been made for him by witness and his brother.s.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
486 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
W. T. McDonald, 72 years of age, states that he was bom and
raised in Lauderdale County, Ala., and knew Aaron Askew ; that he
always understood Aaron Askew to be a Choctaw Indian ; in appear-
ance be was an Indian.
J. L. Davidson states that he is 62 years of age, lives in the Chicka-
saw Nation; bom and raised in Lauderdale County, Ala.: knew
Aaron Askew and his children ; knew Tom Askew ; his people were
Indians; they were copper colored; he was, particularly; he spoke
something and said it was Choctaw, and claimed he could speak Doth
Choctaw and Chickasaw; Aaron Askew wore moccasins and spoke
ChoctaAv and Chickasaw.
Newton Askew states that his age is 59 years ; that he lives near
Willis, in Pickens County (Chickasaw Nation) ; that he came to the
Indian Territory in 1890 ; always claimed to be Choctaw ; came to the
Indian Territory to join his people ; knew Aaron Askew ; that Aaron
Askew claimed to be of Choctaw descent and belonged to the Choctaw
Tribe of Indians ; that he had the appearance of an Indian and had
the Indian " brogue " in his conversation ; that he is related to Leona
D. Houghton, cousin, and cousin to B. B. Askew and his brothers
and sisters: that he and his family lived here all the time since ccwn-
ing to the Indian Territory in 1890. He further states that he was
bom in Alabama and left there to rejoin his tribe; " knew that we
were Choctaw Indians"; that he is a brother of William Quint
Askew and Murrell M. Askew.
Numerous other witnesses testify at great length as to the blood
and descent of applicants herein. It thus appears from the evidence,
which stands unccmtradicted, that applicants are descended from
Aaron Askew, a half-blood Choctaw Indian and a member of the
Choctaw Tribe of Indians; that Murrell Askew, son of Aaron Askew,
came to the Indian Territory in 1880, while the other branches of the
family came to the Indian Territory about 1890, as will be more par-
ticularly set out hereafter.
The evidence shows that all of the descendants of Murrell Askew
(son of Aaron Askew and brother of Matilda Askew Hill and Tom
and Elizabeth Askew Douglass), except Cleopatra Rhoades, his
daughter, and her children, are upon the final rolls of the Choctaw
Nation. It further appears from tne evidence that this branch of the
family made application to the Choctaw Council for admission to
citizenship in the ChoctaAV Nation, which application was rejected,
and that thereafter they appealed to the United States Indian agent,
by whom they were admitted.
(Copv of said opinion of the Indian agent is attached hereto,
marked^" Exhibit L")
There is also with the papers a certificate from J. B. Jackson,
national secretary of the Choctaw Nation, as follows :
This Is to certify that Dora AIcKiiizie and Sam McKiniie are reoo^iissed a**
citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Witness my liand and seal of office tliis the ISth day of October, 18ir>.
J. B. Jackson,
Xatiojial Sicerciary Cliovtaw Nation
I hereby certify tliat the above is a true coi)y, with the excei)tion of the seal
of the Choctaw Nation I am unable to malce.
Witness my hand and seal of office this Auj?nst 22, 1896.
[SEAL. J JKSSE Turner, Xotary Puhltc.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 487
The evidence shows that Dora McKinzie is a sister to B. B. Askew
and daughter of Murrell Askew, and that Sam McKinzie is her hus-
band.
There appear upon the final rolls of the Choctaw Nation, approved
by the Secretary of the Interior, the following names: 14240, Em
Askew (son of Murrell Askew) ; I. W. 1507, Mollie Askew; 1421.%
B. B. Askew (son of Murrell Askew) ; L. W. 1566, Josephine Askew,
wife of A. Askew ; 14272, Daniel B. Askew ; I. W. 1232, Maxie Askew ;
L. W. 1485, Mollie Askew; I. W. 1233, Arkansas Askew; 14230, Tom
V. Askew; 14367, Julius Askew; 14339, Jasper Hendrix; 14234, Mat-
tie Starriett; 14250, Eliza Alexander; 14280, Dora McKinzie.
The records now in possession of the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes show all the above are descended from Murrell
Askew, who is son of Aaron Askew, through whom all applicants
claim their right to enrollment.
There are also the names of several other intermarried persons
and new-bom children upon the final rolls, members of this oranch
of the Askew family. Suffice it to say that the names of all of the
children and grandchildren of Murrell Askew, son of Aaron Askew,
are upon the final rolls, with the exception of the Rhoades family,
claiming their right to enrollment through Cleopatra Rhoades,
daughter of Murrell Askew, and the testimony of L. F. Rhoades is,
as to residence, " I have been living in the Chickasaw Nation seven
3'ears continuously," the date of that statement being October 17,
1898. The Rhoades family should be enrolled.
It is shown by the evidence that Ella Bennett is the daughter of
Mary Martin, who was the daughter of Elizabeth Douglass Askew,
who was a daughter of Aaron A?keAv, and that Ella Bennett and her
children were living in the Choctaw Nation in 1895.
The applicants, William Quint Askew, Murrell W. Askew, and
Newt Askew, are shown by the evidence to have been the sons of
Tom Askew, son of Aaron Askew, and brother of Murrell Askew,
whose descendants are upon the final rolls of the Choctaw Nation.
William Quint Askew says:
I hnve been living in the rhicliasaw Nation about four years. Last winter I
moved to the Choottiw Nation about the laBt of December. I came to the Terri-
tory from Tennessee in October, 1893.
Newt Askew says :
I have been livin?? in tlie Chiclvasaw Nation with my family continuously for
seven years. (Testimony taken in 1897.)
Murrell W. Askew says :
I came here five years ago last fall. (Testimony taken March 17, 1897.)
Other witnesses also testify to the fact that the applicants, Wil-
liam Quint Askew, Murrell W. Askew, and Newt Askew, came to the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the years 1891, 1892, and 1893.
The applicants, J. M. Hill and J. H. Hill, it is shown by the evi-
dence, are the sons of Matilda Hill, daughter of Aar(m Askew and
sister of Murrell Askew, whose descendants are upon the final rolls
of the Choctaw Nation.
J. H. Hill testifies that he came to the Territory in the fall of
1895.
J. M. Hill testifies that " I have been living in the Territory since
^^^^•'' Digitized by google
488 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
STATEMENT.
Counsel for applicants submit that the evidence shows (and there
is nothing in the record to in any way contradict it) that all the
applicants herein are descendants of "Aaron Askew, a half-blood
Choctaw ; that Murrell Askew, his son, came to the Territory about
1880, and his children and grandchildren are upon the final rolls of
the Choctaw Nation; that all the other principal applicants, whose
blood and descent have been heretofore set out, came to the Choctaw
and Chickasaw Nations from 1890 to 1896, none of them later than
1896, and have been living therein continuously ever since, in good
faith.
Counsel submit that all those applicants who are' shown to be of
Choctaw blood and descent, throu/^h Aaron Askew, who removed to
the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations before June 28, 1898, whose
names appear in the judgments of the Unitorl States court admitting
them to citizenship, with their descendants, should be enrolled as
citizens of the Choctaw Nation. They are :
Note, — In the list given below the word "judgment" means that the name of
the person appears In judgment of United States court: where the words "not
In judgment " appear it means they are descendants of those whose names ap-
pear in judgment; where the word **dead" appears it means that that person
apparently died before September 25, 1902, and where that is ascertained to be
Correct the person is not entitled to api)ear upon the rolls.
William Quint Askew, judgment; Martha Askew, his wife, I. W., judgment;
William Thomas Askew, son of William Quint Askew, judgment; George Wash-
ington Askew, son of W. Q., judgment; Sam Askew, son of W. Q., judgment;
Mattie Ellen Askew, daughter of W. Q., judgment; Tom Askew, son, judgment;
nettle Askew, wife of WMlUam Thomas Askew, judgment; Thane Askew, child
of William Thomas Askew, judgment; Perry Askew, child of William Thomas
Askew, Judgment; Tommy Askew, child of William Thomas Askew, judgment;
Lillie Askew, child of William Thomas Askew, judgment; Gilbert Askew, child
of William Thomas Askew, judgment; Lizzie Askew, child of William Thomas
Askew, judgment ; Ethel Askew, child of William Thomas Askew, not in judg-
ment; Robert Askew, child of William Thomas Askew, not in judgment; Robert
Floy Shipman. son of Thane, not In judgment; Dora Askew, wife, judgment;
Sophia Askew, daughter, judgment; Alice Askew, daughter, not In judgment;
Perry Q. Askew, son of George, not In judgment; Fraakie Beatrice Askew,
daughter of Sam. not in judgment; Leo Askew, son of Sam, not in judgment
Murrell W. Askew (dead; not to be enrolled), judgment; Rebecca Askew,
wife, judgment ; Mrs. May Catherine Brewer, daughter, judgment ; Mrs. Martha
Etta Turner, daughter, judgment; John Askew, son, judgment; Emma Brewer,
daughter of May Catherine Brewer, not in judgment; Elmer Brewer, son, not
In judgment: Mary B. Brewer, daughter, not in judgment; John Franklin
Brewer, not in judgment.
Newt Askew, judgment ; Nancy M. Askew, wife, judgment ; William H. Askew,
son, judgment ; Mary Ellen Jackstm, daughter, judgment ; Henry E. Askew, son,
judgment; Elizabeth V. Askew daughter (Hefner), judgment; Dallas A. Askew,
son, judgment; Roxy C. Askew, daughter, judgment; Julius Edward Askew,
son of William H., not in judgment; Violet Askew, daughter, not In judgment;
Taylor Franklin Jackson, son of Mary Ellen, judgment; Alma Jackson, judg-
ment; Charley Jackson, judgment: Roscos Jackson, judgment; Ethel Jackson,
not In judgment; Alpha Marie Hefner, daughter of Elizabeth V., not In judg-
ment; Mary Ann Hefner, not in judgment; Carl Hefner, not in judgment; Oscar
O. Askew, son of Dallas A., not In judgment; Vemle Askew, son, not in judg-
ment ; Arthur W. Carter, son of Roxy Askew Carter, not in judgment.
Ti. F. Rhoades. son of Cleopatra Rhoades, and grandson of Aaron Askew,
judgment: Andrew (). Rhoades. sou. judgment: Sanmel W Rhoades, son (dead),
judgment: Enunett L. Rhoades. son. judgment: Ella N. Rhoades. daughter
(dead?), judgment: Roberta Olive, daughter, judgment; T^essle L. Rhoades,
son of Andrew ()., not in judgment; Roy Cecil Rhoades, son of Andrew O.. not
in judgment ; Floyd Rhoades, son of Andrew O.. not in judgment : Julius Clayton
Rhoades, son of Andrew O., not in judgment: Callle May Rhoades, daughter of
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 489
Emmett L., nor In judgment; Je»se Lee Olive, son of Roberta Olive, not in
judgment; Hettie Olive, daughter of Roberta Olive, not in judgment.
James H. Hill, son of Matilda Hill, n^e Aslcew, judgment; Catherine Hill,
wife, judgment; James T. Hill, son, judgment; Emma Hill, daughter, judgment.
Annie Stover, daughter of Matilda Hill, jtrdgment; P. O. Stover, husband,
judgment; Luther Stover, son, judgment; Lula Stover, daughter, judgment;
Alice Stover, daughter, judgment ; Orion Stover, son, judgment ; Hubert Stover,
son, judgment; Maggie Stover, daughter, judgment; Lillie Stover, daughter,
judgment; Theodore Stover, son, judgment; Harvey Stover, son of Theo<lore,
not in judgment; Hazel Stover, daughter of Theodore, not in judgment.
John M. Hill, son of Matilda Hill, n6e Ash:ew, judgment; Amanda Hill, wife,
judgment; Willie Hill, son, judgment; Fannie Simpson, daughter, judgment;
Ada Bickhnm (Buchanan), daughter, judgment; Cully Blckham. son of Ada,
judgment ; Laura Miles, daughter of J. M. Hill, Judgment ; Connie Hill, daughter
of J. M. Hill. Judgment; Prover Hill, son of J. M. Hill, judgment; Swaney Hill,
daughter of J. M. Hill, judgment; Myrtle Hill, daughter of J. M. Hill, judg-
ment; Philip Hill, son of J. M. Hill, judgment; Jewell Hill, daughter of J. M.
Hill, judgment.
Sewell Hill, son of Willie Hill, not in judgment; Clarrice Hill, daughter of
Willie Hill, not in judgment; Olen Hill, son of Willie Hill, not in judgment;
Mattle E. Simpson, daughter of Fannie Simpson, judgment; Llndsey Simp-
son, son of Clyde; Clyde Simpson, strlcljen from roll, but should be enrolled;
he is son of Fannie Simpson, in judgment; John Simpson, son of Fannie,
stricken from judgment; Grady Simpson, son of Fannie; Ada Edna Buchanan,
daughter of Ada Buchanan, not in judgment ; Mabel Miles, daughter of Laura,
stricken from judgment; Oma V. Miles, daughter of Laura, not in judgment;
Lydia Miles, daughter of I^aura, not in judgment; Johnie Evelina Miles,
daughter of Laura Miles, not in judgment; Pearl Jackson, daughter of Connie
Jackson, not in judgment ; John Herman Jackson, son of Connie, not in judgment.
B. C. Hill, son of Matilda Hill, judgment; Adelia Hill, wife of B. C. Hill,
judgment; T..eona Hill, daughter, judgment; Albert Hill, son, stricken from
judgment; Ray Hill, son, judgment; Bertha Hill, daughter of B. C. Hill, judg-
ment ; Mada Hill, daughter of B. C, stricken from Judgment ; Emmett Hill, son,
not in judgment.
Those marked " stricken from judgment ** are children of others In judgment
and full brothers and sisters to others in judgment. They would seem to have
been stricken from roll through mistake.
Ella Bennett, granddaughter of Elizabeth Douglass, great-granddaughter of
Aaron Askew, judgment; Lela Bennett, daughter, judgment; Ida Martin,
sister, judgment; Maud Martin, sister, judgment; Bettie Rosetty Bennett,
daughter, not In judgment; Charles N. Bennett, son, not in judgment; I^na
Bennett, daughter, not in judgment; Minnie Elizabeth Bennett, daughter, not
In judgment.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Lee, Far the Hills.
W. B. Johnson & A. J. Lee, For the Rh nodes.
Thomas Norman, For the Askews.
Walter S. Field, For Stovers and Tlills.
(125 in all.)
EiXHIBIT A.
TJNiTEa) States of America,
Indian Territory, Crniral District, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a term
thereof begun and held at South McAlester, In the Indian Territory, on the
24th day of August, A. D. 1897. Present, the honorable judge of the court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit:
William Bennett et al. t\ Choctaw Nation. 49. Judgment.
On this 24th day of August, A. D. 1897, the above-styled action came on to
be heard in open court, and both plaintiffs and defendant announced ready for
Digitized by V^OOQIC
490 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
trial, and the matter of fact and law being submitted to the court, a jury being
waived by both parties, and the court having beard all the evidence of both
plaintiffs and defendant and argument of counsel, doth find that the plain tiffs*
Ella Bennett, Ida Martin, Maud Martin, and Lela Ann Bennett, are citizens by
blood of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians, and are entitled to all the
rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits as citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation and Tribe of Indians; the court further finds that plaintiff William
Bennett was not married to a member of the Choctaw Nation acconling to the
laws of said Choctaw Nation and is not entitled to citizenship in said nation.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plain-
tiffs, Ella Bennett, Ida Martin, Maud Martin, and I^la Ann Bennett, be admit-
ted to and granted all the rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits of citizens
by blood of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians, and that their names be
placed upon the legal citizenship rolls of the Choctaw Nation, prepared for
citizens by blood by the Commission to the Five Civilfaed Tribes, or otherwise
hereafter prepared.
It is further ordered that tlie Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes be
transmitted by the clerk of this court a certified copy of the judgment and
decree herein, and an order that the said commission place the namee of tlie
above-named plaintiffs upon the rolls as herein commanded. That the name
of said William Bennett is exclude<l from said rolls, and judgment is here ren-
dered against said William Bennett.
It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the above-named plaintiffs
have and recover of and from the defendant, the Choctaw Nation, all their
costs in this behalf laid out and expended, for all of which let execution issue.
The within is a true copy from the record of an order made by said court
on the 24th day of August, A. I). 1897.
P. B. Stoneb, Clerk,
[SEAL.] By E. J. Fannin, Deputy Clerk.
United States of America,
Central District of the Indinn Territory:
I, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the United States court in and for the central dis-
trict of the Indian Territorj% do hereby certify that the within is a true, correct
copy of a judgment rendered in this court in the above-entitled cause on the
24th day of August, 1897, that the same has not been modified in any respect,
und that the Choctaw Nation has not appealed from said judgm«it
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office at South
McAlester this 17tli day of May, A. I). 1899.
[SEAL.] E. J. Fannin,
United States Clerk.
I United States revenue stamp.]
This is to certify that I am the ottlcer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the menibers of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disi)osition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a judgment of the court dated August 24, 1897, In the matter of the
onrollmeut of William Bennett et al. as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five CitHlized Tribes.
By W. H. Anqell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
MrsKOGEE, Okla., Xovcmber /, JVIO.
Exhibits B and C.
TRANSCKirT OK PROrKKDlNr.S.
United States Court,
Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the Ignited States court in the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
of the 15th day of November, in the year of our Ix>rd 1897.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend, judge of said Court. ^^^.^
Digitized by VjOO^ iC
FIVE CiVlLrZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 491
On the 2l8t day of December, 1807, being a regular day of said term of
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit:
William Quint Askew et al. t\ The Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
This cause coming on to be heard upon the master's report herein and ex-
ceptions thereto and th^ pleadings and evidence on this the 2l8t day of Decem-
ber, 1897, and it appearing to the court from said master's report and the
evHfence herein that a half-breed Choctaw Indian named Aaron Askew died in
the State of Alabama ; that said Aaron Askew married and had l>om to him
among other children two boys named Tom and Murrell; that Murrell Ajskew's
descendants are now enrolled citizens of the Choctaw Nation ; that the appli-
cants herein are the descendants of Tom Askew; that Tom Askew married and
had bom unto him four children, to wit, William Quint Askew, Murrell Wash-
ington Askew, Newt Askew, and Mary Askew.
It further appears that the above William Quint Askew is one of the appli-
cants herein and that all the other applicants are his descendants.
It also appears that all of the applicants herein are bona fide residents of
the Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory, and also that neither they nor their
ancestors have received any lands or other property from either the Choctaw
Nation or the United States, and also that they are of white and Indian blood
and are entitled to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation and to enrollment as
citlaens thereof, having duly complied with the laws in all respects in the
prosecution of their application.
It is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the following-named par-
ties be and the same are hereby admitted to citizenship In the Choctaw Nation
and ordered to be enrolled as citizens and members thereof, to wit: Wllllnm
Quint Askew, William Thomas Askew, George Washlngt;pn Askew, Sam Askew,
Mattle Askew, Ellen Askew, Tom Askew, Thomas Askew, Perry Askew, Tommy
Askew, Llllie Askew, Gilbert Askew, Lizzie Askew, and Sophia Askew.
And it is ordered, decreed, and adjudged that they possess and be permitted
to enjoy and exercise all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens and
members of said Choctaw Nation of Indians.
It further appears that exceptions have been filed to that part of the master's
report relating to Martha Askew, Betty Askew, and Dora Askew, and it is
hereby ordered that this cause stand open as to these three parties so that said
exceptions may be considered hereafter, but in all other respects and with
reference to all other parties mentioned in the master's report said master's
report is confirmed.
HosEA Town SEND, Judge,
United States Court,
Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I. C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing orders
are truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the
same appears to me. .
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and afllxed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1K08.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
This Is to certify that I am the officer hnvlng custody of the records per-
tr.lnlng to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the distribution of the Innd of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct coyiy of " trans-
scrtpt of proceedings" had In the T'nlteil States court for Indinn Territory,
southern district, on the 21 st day of December, 1S07. in the case of William
Quint Askew et al. v. The Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Frre Cirilized Trihen,
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
MtrsKooEE, Okla., November U 10 tO.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
492 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
tban8cbipt of pboceedincs.
United States Coubt,
Indian Territory, Southern District, as:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory,
<listrict, b^un and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1897.
Present : The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court
On the 12th day of March, 1898, being a regular day of said term of court,
among the proceedings had were the following, to wit:
William Quint Askew et al. v, Choctaw Nation. 71. Judgment
This cause coming on to be heard on this the 12th day of March, 1898,
as to all those parties as to whom the Judgment heretofore rendered on
December 21, 1898. was reserved and held open; and the court being fully
advised as to both the law and evidence, finds that Martha Askew, Betty Askew,
and Dora Askew are Choctaw Indians by marriage, and that they are entitled
to citizenship in said Choctaw Nation or Tril>e of Indians and to be enrolled
t*n the rolls of citizenship of said nation.
It is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that Martha Askew, Betty
Askew, and Dora Askew be, and the same are hereby, admitted to citiiseiiship
in the Choctaw Nation and to enrollment upon the rolls of said nation, and
they are hereby vested with and shall he permitted to exercise and Mijoy all
the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of said nation. The clerk is
liereby ordered and directed to certify a copy of this Judgment to the Dawes
Commission, and said commission is hereby directed to enroll the above parties
on the roll of the Choctaw Nation.
I'NiTED States Court,
Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court Journals of said court, as the
same appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898. ^
[SEAL.l C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of " tran-
script of proceedings" and Judgment rendered by Hon. Hosea Townsend on
March 12, 1898. in case No. 71, styled William Quint Askew et al. v. Choctaw
Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Fire Ciriliezd Tribes,
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
.Muskogee, Okla., November J, 1910.
EIXHIBIT D.
Murrell Washington Askew et al., i>laintlflfs. r. The Choctaw Nation, defendants.
No. 72.
This cause coming on to be heard upon the master's report herein and excep-
tious thereto, and the pleadings and evidence, on this the 21st day of December,
1897, and it appearing to the court from the said master's report and evidence
herein that a half-breed Choctaw Indian named Aaron Askew lived and died
jn the State of Alabama; fhat said Aaron Askew married and had bom to
hfm, among other children, two boys named Tom and Murrell; that Murrell
jVskew's descendants are now enrolled citizens of the Choctaw Nation ; that the
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 493
Applicants herein are descendants of the said Tom Askew; that Tom Askew
married and had born to him children, to wit, William Quint Askew, Murrell
Washington Askew, Newt Askew, and Mary Askew. It further appears that
said Murrell Washington Askew and Newt Askew are applicants herein, and
that all the rest of the applicants herein are their descendants.
It also appears that all the applicants herein are bona fide residents of the
Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T. ; and also that neither they nor their ancestors
have received any lands or other property from the Choctaw Nation or the
United States ; and also that they are of white and Indian blood and are entitled
to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation and to be enrolled as citizens thereof,
having duly complied with the laws In all respects in the prosecution of their
application.
It is therefore ordereil, decreed, and adjudged that the following-named
parties be and the same are hereby admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation and ordered to be enrolled as citizens and members thereof, to wit:
Murrell Washington Askew, Mr& May Catherine Brewer, Mrs. Martha Etta
Turner, John Askew, Newt Askew, William Howard Askew, Mary Ellen Jack-
son, Taylor Franklin Jackson. Alma Jackson, Charlie Jackson, Roscoe Jackson,
Henry Edward Askew, Elizabeth Viola Askew, Dallas Alexander Askew. Roxie
Cordelia Askew, Emma Brewer and Elmer Brewer, Mrs. Rebecca Askew, and
Mrs. Nancy Melinda Askew.
And it is ordered, decreed, and adjudged that they possess and be permitted
to enjoy and exercise all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens and
members of said Choctaw Nation of Indians.
It further appears that exceptions have been filed to that part of the master's
report relating to George Brewer, Marshall Turner, and Tom Jackson, and it is
hereby ordered that this cause stand open as to these three parties, so that
said exceptions may be considered hereafter, but in all other respects and with
reference to all other parties mentioned in said report said master's report
is confirmed.
HosEA TowNSEND, Judge,
This is to certify that I am the ofllcer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw. Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a Judg-
ment of the court dated December 21, 1897, In the matter of the enrollment
of Murrell Washington Askew et al., as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla., November 1, 1910.
Exhibit E.
traivscbipt of pboceedings.
United States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore. in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1897.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend. Judge of said court.
On the 22d day of December, 1897. being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
L. F. Rhoades et al. v. Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
This day this cause coming on to be heard upon the pleadings, exhibits,
proof, and master's report, and it appearing to the court that said report has
been filed since July 1. 1897, and no exceptions having been filed thereto. The
court is therefore of the opinion that said report should be in all respects con-
firmed; and the court being sufi^ciently advised upon the whole case, doth
order, adjudge, and decree that Andrew O. Rhoades, Samuel P. Rhoades,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
494 FIVE CIVIUZEP TJaiBJES IN OBXiilHOMA.
Emmett L. Rhoades, JBUa N. Elioades, Mrs. Roberta Oliver, and Jesse Lee
Oliver each and all be admitted and enrolled as members of the Choctaw tribe
of Indians, and that Uiey have all the rlglits, prlvilegnB, and immunities as
such. And it is further adjudged by the court that a copy of this jndcme&t be
certified by the clei'k of this court to the Dawes Commission, and said cow-
mission is hereby ordered to place each and all of the above-named parties
upon the roll made out by it for the. Choctaw Nation, as members thereof.
HOSEA TOWNSEND. JudgC,
United States Court,
Indian Territory, southern diatriet, as:
I, C. M. CaJtti^b^l, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify, that the foregoing orders are
truly taken, and correctly cotiied from court journals of said court, as the aame
appears to me.
in testimony whereof, I liave hereunto set my band and affixed the seal af
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.! C. M. Campbeli,, Clerks
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enroll uient of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a judgment of the court dated December 22, 1897, in the matter of tfce
enrollment of L. F. Rhondes er al., as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla., November 1. 1910.
TBANSCBIPT of PBOCEEDIN06.
United States Coubt,
Indi4in Territory, southern district y ««:
At a stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory, sovtli-
em district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Ter-
ritory, on the 28th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1898.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend, judge of said court.
On the 28th day of September, 1898. being a regular day of said term of
said court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
L. F. Rhoades et al. v, Choctaw Nation. No. 128. EiUtered nunc pro tunc
December 22, 1898. Supplemental judgment.
It appearing to ihe court that the said judgment heretofore entered in this
case does not show that L. F. Rhoades was admitted to citizenship, and that
judgment was rendered admitting the .said L. F. Rhoades as a member of the
Choctaw tribe of Indians, but that by oversight or mistake his name was omit-
ted from said original judgment. It is tiierefore ordered, adjudged, and de-
creed by the court that the plaintiff, the said L. F. Rhoades, be and is a member
by intermarriage of the tribe of Choctaw Indians and is entitled to be enrolled
as a member of said tribe of Indians by marriage: and the clerk of this court
is hereby ordered and directed to forward a certified copy of this judgment
to the proper authorities for the enrollment of said L. F. Rhoades. and that he
be enrolled by wild authorities as a member of the said Choctaw tribe of
Indians. It is further ordered that this judgment be entered by the clerk
nunc pro tunc, as of the date of the original judgment filed herein.
Hosea Townsend, Judge.
United States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, as:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within asd for the difllrict
and Territory aforesaid, .do hereby certify, that the foregoing orders are tnily
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OJtU^LHOMA. 496
taken, and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the same
•ppears to me.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said coiurt, at Ardmore, this 15th day of October, A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a supplemental Judgment of the court dated September 28, 1898, in
the matter of the enrollment of L. F. Rhoades et al., as members of the Choc-
taw Nation.
J. Geo. Wbioht,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes'.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla.. November 1, J910.
Exhibit F.
transcbipt of pboceedings.
ITnited States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, In the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1897.
Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court.
On the 22d day of December, 1897, being a regular day of said term of
said court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
J. H. Hill et al. v. Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
This day this cause coming on to be heard upon the ploadinp?, exhibits, proof,
and master's report, and it appearing that said report has been filed since July
7, 1897, and no exceptions having been filed thereto, the court Is of the opinion
that said report should be confirmed in all respects; and the court, being suffi-
ciently advised In the whole case, doth order, adjudge and decree that the
plalntiflfs and applicants, J. H. Hill, Emma Hill, Anna B. Stover, Luther Stover,
Lula Stover, Herbert Stover, Alle StoVer. Ollon Stover. Maggie Stover. Ltllle
Stover, Theodore Stover, each and all be admitted and enrolled as members
of the Choctaw tribe of Indians by blood, and that the plalntiifs and applicants,
P. O. Stover and Caroline Hill, each and both be enrolled as members of
the Choctaw tribe by Intermarriage, and that they each and all have all
th€ rights, privileges, and Imnnmltles as such. And it is if urther adjudged by
the court that a copy of this Judgment be certified by the clerk of this court to
the Dawes Commission, and said commission is hereby directed! to place each
and all of the above-named parties upon the roll made out by It for the Choc-
taw Nation as members thereof.
Hose A Townsend, Judfre.
Fnited States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
L C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court Journals of sjild court as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and afl^ed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
18EAL.1 C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
This Is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrolhnent of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians, and the disposition of tlie land of aald
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certl-
Digitized by VjOOv Ic
496 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOl^IA.
fled copy of a judgment of the court dated December 22. 1897, in the matter
of the enrollment of J. H. Hill et al., as members of the Choiitaw Nation.
J. Gbo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in charge of Choctaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla., November i, I'OIO.
Exhibits G and H.
tbansgbipt of proceedings.
United States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1897.
Present : The Hon. Hosea Townsend, judge of said court
On the 8th day of March, 1898, being a regular day of said term of court,
among the proceedings had were the following, to wit:
J. M. Hill et al. v. Choctaw Nation. 149. Judgmwit
This day this cause coming on to be heard upon the pleadings, exhibits,
proof, and master's report filed herein, and it appearing that said report has
been filed since February 21, 1898, and no exceptions filed thereto: It is there-
fore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court, that said report be, and the
sjime is hereby, confirmed in all resjHH'ts. It is further adjudged that the
applicants, J. M. Hill, Willie Hill, Sewell Hill, Fannie Simpson, Clyde Simpson,
John Simpson, Grady Simpson, Ada Bickham, Oullie Bickham, Laura Miles,
Mable Miles, Myrtle Hill, Philip Hill, Swaney Hill, Connie HUl, Jewell Hill,
Grover Hill, B. C. Hill, Albert Hill, Leona Hill, Ray Hill, Bertha Hill, and
Mada fiill, each and all be admitted as members of the Choctaw Tribe of
Indians by blood. And that the applicants, Amanda Hill, wife of J. M. Hill,
and Adelia Hill, wife of B. C. Hill, each and both be admitted as members of
the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by Intermarriage. It is further adjudged that
each and all of the above-named parties are entitled to and are hereby given
all the rights, privileges, and immunities of members of the Choctaw Tribe
of Indians. And the clerk of this court is hereby ordered to transmit a certi-
fied copy of this judgment to the proper authorities who are instructed to
enroll them as such.
United States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court, within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the
same appears to me.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the oflScer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certi-
fied copy of a judgment of the court, dated March 8, 1898, in the matter of the
enrollment of J. M. Hill et al., as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla., November 1, 1910.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
PIV^ OrVELIZED TRTBBS IN CTKLAHOMA. 497
transcbipt of proceedings.
United States Coitbt,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory, southem
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 4th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1899.
* Present, the Hon. Hosea Townsend, judge of said court.
On the 15th day of January, 1900, being a regular dan of said term of court,
among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
J. M. Hill et al. v. Choctaw Nation. 140. Order correcting judgm^it.
On this 15th day of January, 1900, comes on to be heard in open court the
motion of defendant, Choctaw Nation, to correct the Judgment heretofore ren-
dered in this cause, and the plaintiffs and defendant appear, and the court
having heard said motion, and being well and fully advised in the premise8»
doth find that the names Sewell Hill, Clyde Simpson, John . Simpson, Grady
Simpson, Mable Miles, Mada Hill, and Albert Hill have been by mistake in-
cluded in said judgment and admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation.
It is therefore, by the court considered, ordered, and adjudged that the names
of Sewell Hill, Clyde Simpson, John Simpson, Grady Simi>9on, Mable Miles,
Mada Hill, and Albert Hill be and are hereby stricken from said judgment,
and that said persons take no rights to citizenship In the Choctaw Nation, 'by
reason of said judgment, and this order is made and this judgment rendered
nunc pro tunc as of the date of the original judgment herein.
United States Court,
Indian Territory^ southern district, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United 'States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certii^ that the fovegoiag orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of >8aid cogrt, astbe tsame
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal 'Ot
said court at Ardmore, this 26th day of February, A. D. 1900.
[SBAL.j CM. CAJfPBEbL.
This is to certify that I am the officer rtmving custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land. of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and porrect copy of a certi-
fied copy of a judgment of the court dated January 15, 1900, In the matter of
the enrollment of J. M. Hill et al. as members of the Choetaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes^
By W. H. Angell,
C2erk in charge of Choctaw records, ,
Muskogee, Okla., November i, 1910,
£xHiBrr I.
Before Dew M. Wisdom. United States Indian Agent, Union Agency, Ind. T,
Muskogee, Ind. T., February 8, 1S95.
B. B. Askew et al. c. Choctaw Nation. Claim to citizenship.
OPINION.
In this cause, on October 12, 1880, the petitioners all claim that they are
Choctaw Indians by blood, being direct descendants of Aaron Askew, a half-
breed Choctaw, said petition was rejected by the Choctaw counsel on account
of there not being sufladency of proof to sustain it; and on November 27, 1887,
the i;>etitioners appealed from the decision of the Choctaw counsel to this agency.
69282—13 32 Digitized by V^OOglC
498 FIVE CIVILIZBD TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
It appears from the proof in the case that a white man by the name of
Askew married a Choctaw Indian woman of the name of Frazier, and that
Aaron Askew was the child of said marriage, and that he was a half ChoctAw
Imlian.
Second, it appears that Aaron Askew was the father of Moses Askew and
Merrell Askew.
Third, it appears that Moses Askew has no heirs living, and that the claim-
ants are the children of Merrell Askew.
It appears from the evidence of C. H. Frazier, filed in this case, that Bay-
Jess Askew (the petitioner) is a relative of said Frazier, who is a Choctaw
Indian by blood. It also appears from the evidence of W. T. McDonald and
John Best, Choctaw Indians of Helden, Ind. T., that Aaron Askew Vas the
father of Moses Askew and Merrell Askew (the father of B. B. Askew), and
that Aaron Askew was a half-breed Choctaw Indian and that Merrell Askew
was one-foifrth Indian blood, and, according to the evidence of Best and McDon-
ald, intermarried with Frazier.
There is also n certificnte, filed with the evidence, signed by W. H. Bighnm
and two other Chickasaw cltzens, who state that J. O. Best is a man of un-
<]uestioned integrity, pure character, and entirely reliable and trustworthy.
The evidence of R. W. Officer, D. A. Trobaugh, and G. W. Cnrr are all to
the effect that Aaron Askew, the grandfather of petitioner, B. B. Askew,
claimed to be an Indian, and such was his reputation in Alabama before he
•came to the Choctaw country. This evidence is not conclusive, but Is persua-
sive and confirms the testimony of Best and McDonald.
I am therefore inclined to the opinion, and so decide, that petitioners have
proven their Indian blood and are entitled to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation,
Notice of the trial to be had at this agency was mailed to W. N. Jones, the
then chief of the Choctaw Nation, July 8, 1884, and the trial was set for July
19, 1884, but no evid^ence on the part of the Choctaw Nation was ever sub-
mitted to this agency further than certain interrogatories propounded to cer-
tain witnesses in the case. It would therefore seem that the Choctaw Nation
was very indifferent as to Its rights in the matter and that it was willing that
the case might go by default.
The petitioners who are adjudicjited by this opinion to l>e entitled to Choc-
taw citizenship are as follows: Aaron Askew and his wife, Lucy, and their
tJhildren, Daniel Oscar, Bee, and two other minor children; A. M. Askew and
wife, Eliza, and their children. Murray, T^ee, I^lzzle, and other baby; B. B.
Askew and wife. Manie, and their children, Boldeu, Shelton, and Stella ; Tom
Askew and Julius Askew, brothers of petitioner; Belle Hendricks <n^ Askew)
and her husband, Jasper Hendricks, and their children, Eddie, Zora, Willie.
Ida, and husband, James Alexander, and their child, Mattie; Mattle Starritt
and husband, George Starritt, and their children. Frank, Dora McKenzle. and
her husband, Sam McKenzle.
Respectfully submitted. Dew M. Wisdom,
United States Indian Agent.
lioBERT L. Vaughn et al., M. C. R. 340. Annie M. Duncan et al.,
M. C. R. 339.
June 19, 1900. Applications were made to the commission at
Colbert, Ind. Ter., for the enrollment of Robert L. Vaughn and his
minor children, Edna A. Vaughn, Arthur C. Vaughn, Walter A.
Vaughn, Victor K. Vaughn, Ora M. Vaughn, Mary J. Vaughn,
Uobert Vaughn ; and for the enrollment of Annie M. Duncan and her
minor children, Jesse Duncan, Robert L. Duncan, Mary E. Duncan,
:as Mis.sissippi blood Choctaws.
Annie M. Duncan and Robert L. Vaughn, the two principal claim-
ta^ts, are brother and sister and claim through the same ancestors.
The examination of records show that when said applications were
made the applicants testified to, among other, the following facts :
Annie M. Duncan, 30 years old, child of Allen Vaughn, half-blood
Choctaw, and grandchild of Alexander Vaughn, a full-blood Choctaw,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
.FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 499
who resided in the Choctaw Nation, Mississippi, in 1830. Applicant,
Annie M. Duncan, was bom in the Choctaw Nation and had lived in
the Choctaw-ChicKasaw Nations all her life; had been recognized by
the Choctaw Indians as a Choctaw, though not <^5cially recognized
by the Choctaw national authorities ; had held and improved land as
other Choctaws; had never applied for enrollment or admission to
citizenship in the nation prior to this application, as it had never
been necessary, as she was a Choctaw Indian and her rights had
never been disputed. She claimed that her grandfather was a bene-
ficiaiT under the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830.
Rwert L. Vaughn, 39 years old, testified that he was bom and had
lived in the nations all his life ; was the son of Allen Vaughn, a half-
breed and a grandson of Alexander Vaughn, a full blood, who took
land under the treaty of 1830 ; that his rights as a Choctaw had never
been disputed ; that he had exercised all uie rights of a Choctaw, but
did not Know whether his name appeared on any of the rolls. He
stated that he applied to the commission in 1896, but his application
was received too late and was returned to him; that he again applied
in 1899, at Atoka, for enrollment as a Choctaw Indian, and that he
now applied for enrollment as a Mississippi Choctaw.
The applications in both of these cases were submitted for the
enrcdlment of the claimants as Mississippi Choctaws because of the
act of May 31, 1900, which prohibited the commission from receiving,
considering, or making any record of any application of any person
not a recognized and enrolled member of the tribe. This act did not
apply to Mississippi Choctaws who were beneficiaries or descendants
of beneficiaries under article 14 of the treaty of 1830.
Other witnesses testified before the commission to the facts as
i^tated by the claimants, and on August 21, 1902, the commission
rendered its decision, in which it says :
It also appears that all of the said applicants claim rights in the Choctaw
lands under article 14 of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw
Nation conclnded September 27, 1830, by reason of being descendants of one
Alexander Vanghn, who is alleged to have been a full-blood Choctaw and to have
resided in the old Choctaw Nation, States of Mississippi and Alabama, in 1830.
It further appears from the evidence submitted in support of said applica-
tions and from the records In the possession of the commission that no one of
said applicants has ever been enrolled as a member of the Choctaw Tribe by
the Choctaw tribal authorities or admitted to Choctaw citizenship by a duly
constituted court or committee of the Choctaw Nation, or by the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes, or by a decree of the United States court in Indian
Territory under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896.
From the records in the possession of the commission it is found that the
name of one Alexander Vaughn apr)ears upon page 27, volume 1, Court of Claims
Record, The Choctaw Nation r. The United States, in a list of Choctaw Indians
whose reservations were sold under article 19 of the treaty of 1830.
It is further found that the name of one Alexander Vaughn appears on page
116 of volume 7, American State Papers, Public Lands, in a list of names of
Choctaw Indians, heads of families, who resided in Greenwood Le Flore's dis-
trict, in the territory occupied by the Choctaws in 1830, and who had land in
cultivation, in exchange for which they were to receive stipulated tracts of
land. The records referred to in no way relate to or show any compliance or
attempted compliance on the part of the persons therein named with the pro-
visions of article 14 of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.
The commission therefore held that claimants were not entitled to
enrollment and rendered a decision denying them.
October 17, 1902. The decision of the commission was approved
by the Secretary.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
500 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that these .peg>le are
Indians, children of recognized Indians, and bom in the Choctaw
Nation ; Uiat this made them citizens of the nation, amd ttet no ad-
mission by an Indian council could add to their rights; that th^y
should not be deprived of their ri^ts because of an act of Confess
conceived by attorneys for the natwms who were being paid per Lead
for all persons they could keep off the roll and enacted by Congiress
without any Member of Congress in the House or Senate realizing its
effects— the act of May 31, 1900.
The following persons are entitled- to enrollment: Robert L.
Vaughn Edna A. Vaughn, .Arthur C. Vaughi, Welter A. Vaughn,
Victor K. Vaughn, Ora M. Vaughn, M^ J. Vau^n, BoIh^
''^aughn, Annie M. Duncai ' ^
L Duncan.
Respectfully submitted.
Vaughn, Annie M. Duncan, Jesse Duncan, Robert L. Duncan, Mary
E. Duncan.
WAi/na S. FifiLD,
Attrntiey for OUtmumU.
DltPABTMEKT OF t&E INTEEIOB,
Oommigaion to the Five OiiHHzed THbes.
In the matter of the application of Robert L. Vaughn et al. for identification
as MlssiSBlppl Choctaws, consolidating the applications of Robert L. Vaa^bm
et al., M. C. R. 340, and Anna M. Duncan et al., M. C. U. 339.
DECISION.
It appears from the record herein that applications for identification as
Mifcsissippi Choctaws were made to this commission by Robert L. Vaughn, for
himself and his seven minor children, Edna A., Arthur C, Walter A., Victor K..
Ora M., Mary J., and Robert Vaughn, and Anna M. Duncan, for herself and
her three minor children, Jesse, Robert L., and Mary E. Duncan, and it also
appears that application for identification as an intermarried Mississippi 01k)C-
taw was made to this commission by Rol>€rt L. Vaughn for his wife, Ruth
Vaughn, under the following provision of the act of Congress approved June 28,
1808 (30 Stilts., 495) :
" Said commission shall have authority to determine the identity of Choctaw
Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under article fourteen of the
treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded September
twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty, and to that end may administer
oaths, examine witnesses, and perform all other acts necessary thereto, and
malce reix)rt to the Secretary of the Interior.*'
It also appears that all of said applicants claim rights in the Choctaw lands
under article 14 of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw
Nation concluded September 27, 1830, by reason of being descendants of one
Alexander Vaughn, who is allegctd to have been a full-blood Choctaw and to
have resided In the old Choctaw Nation, States of Missis-sippi and Alabama, in
1830.
It further appears from the evidence submitted in support of said applications
and from the records in the possession of the commission that no one of said
applicants has ever been enrolled as a member of the Choctaw Tribe by the
Choctaw tribal authorities, or admitted to Choctaw citizenship by a duly consti-
tuted court or committee of the Choctaw Nation, or by the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes, or by a decree of the United States court In Indian Ter-
ritory under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896 (29
Stats., 321).
From the records in the possession of the commission It Is found that the
name of one Alexander Vaughn appears upon page 2r7, volume 1, Court of Claims
Record, The Choctaw Nation v. The United States, in a list of Choctaw Indians
whose reservations were sold under article 19 of the treaty of 1830.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 501
It Is further found that the name of one Alexander Vaughn appears on' page
116 of volume 7, American State Papers, Public Lands, in a list of names of
Choctaw Indians, heads of families, wlio resided in Greenwood Le Flore's, dis-
trict, in the territory occupied by the Choctaw Indians In 1830, and who had
land in- cultivation, in exchange for which they were to receive stipulated tracts
of land, Tha records referred to in no way relate to or show any compliance
or attempted compliance on the part of the persons therein named with the
provisions of article 14 of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.
It does not appear from the. testimony and evidence offered in support of
said applications, or from the records in the possession of the commission
relating to persons who complied, or attempted to comply, with the provi-
sions of said article 14 of the treaty of 1830, and to persons who heretofore
were claimants thereunder that the said Alexander Vaughn, or an anceatpr
less remote, or any of the applicants herein signified (in person or by proxy)
to Col. William Ward, Indian agent, Choctaw agency, an intention to comply
with the provisions of said article 14 of the treaty of 1830, or presented a
claim to rights thereunder to either of the oommissions authorized to adjudi-
cate such claims by the acts of Congress approved March 3, 1837 (5 St^tSu
180), and Augpst 23, 1842 (5 Stats., 513) :
It is therefore the opinion of this commission that the evid^nce herein is
InsnffiGient to determine the identity of Robert L. Vaughn, Edna A. Vaughn,
Arthur C. Vaughn, Wajter A. Vajughn. Victor K. Vaughn, Ora M. Vaughn,
Mary J. Vaughn, Robert Vaughn, Anna M. Duncan, Jesse Duncan, Robert L.
Duncan, and Mary E. Duncan as Choctaw Indians entitled to rights in the
Choctaw lands under the provisions of said article 14 of the treaty of 1830,
arid that the applloations for their identification as such should be refused, and
it is so ordered.
It is the further opinion of this commission that under the provisions of law
above quoted no person is entitled to identification as a Mississippi Choctaw
by intermarriage, and that the application made by Robert L. Vaughn for the
Identification of his wife, Ruth Vaughn, as an intermarried Mississippi Choc-
taw should tbforetpre be refused, and it is so ordered.
The Commls.sion to the Five Civilized Tribes:
Tams Bixby,
Acting Chairman.
T. B. Needles,
C. R. Breckenridge,
Commissioners.
MusKO(iEE. IND. T., July 21. 1902.
John McCarty et al. Anderson McCarty et al.
Commission, No. 1275. Commission, No. 1309. United States Court,
No. 59, McAlester. Citizenship Court, No. 29, McAlester.
September 9, 189(>. Ori^al applications filed with commission for
enrollment of Everett E. McCarty, his brother, Anderson McCarty,
and their families, numbering 36 claimants. All claim through
Annie McCarty, their mother, who was a one-quarter blood Choctaw,
and their grandmother, Mrs. Martha Smith (nee Jones), a half-
blood Choctaw. Both of their ancestoi-s lived in the old ChoctBw
Nation, Miss., when claimants were born. Claimants removed to
and settled in the Choctaw Nation, in 1888, near Healdton, where
they have since resided. Claimants took up land, improved it, and
tiieir right to issue permits to noncitizens, which they did, was never
questioned, as appears from the evidence and the permits issued,
which are of record. Deeds are on file showing that they bought
and sold farms, as other Choctaws did. In October, 1895, Everett
McCarty applied to the Choctaw Citizenship Committee for the
enrollment of himself and family. The claim was favorably acted
Digitized by VjOO^ IC
502 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
upon by the committee, but no action was taken on it by the council,
which adjourned only a few da3rs after the report was made. In
1896 they applied to the commission instead of to the council. The
evidence as to their Choctaw blood is conclusive, as is also the evi-
dence of the residence of 25 of them in the nation since 1886 and
tribal afSliation.
December 8, 1896. Application denied by commission. No decision.
Stamped " Denied."
January, 1897. Case appealed to United States court; testimony
taken and record before commission considered.
August 25, 1897. Special Master T. N. Foster recommended the
enrollment of 25 of the claimants.
August 26, 1897. A judgment was entered adjudging the following
persons citizens of the Choctaw Nation (certified copy hereto at-
tached) : Everet McCarty, Evelyn E. McCarty, Teressa Wilson, John
McCarty, Theron B. McCarty, Louis McCarty, Jennie F. McCarty,
Carrol C. McCarty, Charlotte E. McCarty, Loula Babers, Pinkey
Lewis, Floyd Lewis, Millie Lewis, Beacher Alison, Ada Wilson, Addfe
Wilson, Anderson McCarty, C. M. McCarty, James A. McCarty, W. S.
McCarty, Maggie McCarty, Mildred McCarty, Loucile McCarty,
Frank McCarty, and James A. McCarty, jr.
August 8, 1899. Enrolled by commission.
December 17, 1902. Decree of United States court set aside by de-
cree of citizenship court in test case.
March 6, 1903. Records United States court transferred to citi-
zenship court. Testimony taken.
April 30, 1904. Decree was entered denying all applicants.
JAMES R. KELLEY ET AL.
These claimants are the children of Annie Kelley (nee McCarty),
a sister of Anderson and E. E. McCarty.
The facts in this case are identical with those set out in the above
case. The record differs only as to the persons included in the appli-
cations and judgments. The commission denied their applications in
1896. Case appealed to United States court, there heard, and a decree
entered adjudging the following persons citizens of the Choctaw
Nation: James K. Kelley,, Annie Kelley, James R. Kelley, jr..
Teressa Kelley, Buel Kelley, Ruth Kelley, Grace Kelley, Eugene
McCarty, Marcellus McCarty, Rosa Belle McCarty, Nannie Lou Mc-
Carty, Elbert McCarty. Laura J. Hancock, John Hancock, Viola
Hancock, Lettie Hancock, Joseph Hancock, Beadie Hancock, Walter
Hancock, Joseph McCarty, Alfonso McCarty, and Oscar McCarty.
Certified copy of decree hereto attached.
December 1(, 1902. Decree of United States court set aside by de-
cree of citizenship court in test case. Papers later transferred to
citizenship court and case decided adversely to applicants April 30,
1904, court holding that the Indian blood of their ancestors was not
sufficiently establisned.
Applications for the enrollment of new boms were submitted and
denied as follows :
September 10, 1900. Josie McCarty, infant child of Eugene and
Thursa McCarty; denied May 27, 1904.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE Cn'IUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 50S
December 22, 1900. Stewart Milton McCarty and Annie L. Mc-
Carty, infant children of T. B. McCarty, bom December 22, 1900;
denied May 27, 19(M.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that upon the facts shown
in the record in this case these claimants are entitled to enrollment
under the decision in the Long case, if not in the Lulu West case.
February 14, 1906. Petition was filed with the commission for the
enrollment of each of the above-named applicants under the decisioi^
in the Lula West case, they alleging that their recognition in 1895 by
the citizenship committee entitled them to enrollment on Januarj' 3i,.
1907.
September 27, 1896. Commission rejected their claim to enrollment
(decision hereto attached).
March 4, 1907. Secretary affirmed decision of commission rejecting^
claimants, under opinion of the Attorney General of February !!>,.
1907, which was construed by the department as holding that the
decision of the citizenship court was final.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit tliat the following per-
sons are clearly entitled to enrollment: Everet E. McCarty, Evelyn
E. McCarty, Teressa Wilson, John McCarty, Theron B. McCarty,
Louis McCarty, Jennie F. McCarty, Carrol C. McCarty, Charlotte E.
McCarty, Loula Babers, Pinkey Lewis, Floyd Lewis, Millie Lewis.
Beacher Alison, Ada Wilson, Addie Wilson, Anderson McCarty, C. M.
McCarty, James A. McCarty, W. S. McCarty, Maggie McCarty^
Mildred McCarty, Loucile McCarty, Frank McCarty, James A. Mc-
Carty, jr., James R. Kelley, Annie Kelley, James R. Kelley, jr., Teressa
Kelley, Buel Kelley, Eugene McCarty, Marcellus McCarty, Kosa Belle
McCarty, Nannie Lou McCarty, Elbert McCarty, Laura J. HancocK
John Hancock, Viola Hancock, Lettie Hancock, Joseph Hancock,
Beadie Hancock, Walter Hancock, Joseph McCarty, Alfonso Mc*
Carty, Oscar McCarty, Ruth Kelle}', and Grace Kelley.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully, Ballinger ft Lee,
Attorneys for Claimants^
Vnited States of America.
Indian Territory, central Ohtrict, as:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a
Verm thereof bepun and held at South McAlester, In the Indian Territory, on
the 19th day of January, A. D. 1898.
Present : The honorable William H. H. Clayton, judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit:
James R. Kelley et al. r. Choctaw Nation. No. 78.
On this day the motion herein filed by plaintiffs to re-form Judgment rendered
in ttiis case on August 20. 1897, came on to be heard: and the court finds
tluit in said judgment a clerical error appears, in which the' names Retta
Hancock and Betta Ilancock are used Instead of the names Lettie Hancock
and Beaddle IIanc<x?k, the correct names as shown by proof; and that the
names Ruth Kelley and (inue Kelley were also omitted from said judgment,
in which tlielr names should have appeared, their claims having been properly
adjudicated, and not mentioned in said judgment; and the names of Minerva
Kelly and Fanny Kelly were also entered by clerical error; and the court being
tfufficiently informed, doth sustain said motion ; and it is therefore ordered that
Digitized by V^OOQIC
504 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBS^S IN OKLAHOMA.
said Judgment so rendered be re-formed so as to be as follows : James R. Kelley
et al. V. Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
On this day thi^ cause came on to be heard, and the same was admitted to
the court upon the pleadings and proof; and the court being well and sufllciently
advised in the premises, finds the issues in fa^vor of appell^ints James R.
Kelley, Annie Kelley, James R. KelJey, jr., Teressa Kelley, Buel Kelley, Eugene
McCarty, Marcellus McCarty, Rosa Belle McCarty, Nannie Lou McCarty, Elbert
McCarty. I^ura J. H«ncock, John Hancock, Viola Hancock, Lettie Hancock,
Joseph Hancock, Beadie Hancock, Walter Hancock, Joseph McCarty, Alfonso
^fcCarty, Oscar McCarty, Ruth Kelley, and Grace Kelley, and against appel-
lants Eliza A. Greer, Erastus Kelley, Everett Kelley, E. 0. K^Uey, all being
nonresidents of the Choctaw Nation.
It is therefore considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the said
James R. Kelley, Annie Kelley, James R Kelley, Jr., Teressa Kelley, Buel Kelley,
Ruth Kelley, Grace Kelley, Eugene McCarty, Marcellus McCarty, Rosa Belle
McCarty, Nannie Lou McCarty. Elbert McCarty, Laura J. Hancock, John Han-
cock; Viola Hancock, Tattle Hancock. Joseph Hancock, Beadie Hancock, Walter
Hancock, Joseph McCarty, Alfonso McCarty, and Oscar ^IcCarty are Choctaw
Indians by blood and entitled to be enrolled ns members of said tribe, and that
lUey recover of the said Choctaw Nation their costs laid out and expended: and
that the Choctaw Nation recover its costs against appellants Eliza A. Greer,
Brastus Kelley, Everett Kelley, and E. C. Kelley ; and ordered further that this
order be entered now as of August 26, 1807; and that the clerk of this court
furnish certified copy of same to the Commission to the Five CivlliBed Tribes.
t/NiTED States of America,
Indian Territory, central district, sh:
r, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the district court of the United States for the
<ltetrict of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
copy of an order made by snld court on the 19th day of January, 3898, as
up|)ears from the records of said conrt now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof. I have hereunto set my hand, at my office In South
McAlester, in said district, this 28th day of January, A. D. 1898.
E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
By , Deputy.
T'NrrED States of America,
Indian TeiTitory, central district, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a
lerm thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on
the 26th day of August, 1897.
Present : The honorable William H. H. Clayton, Judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
E. E. McCarty et al. r. Choctaw Nation. Judgment.
On this (lay this cause came on to be heard, whereupon the plaintiff and
flefendnnt announced ready for trial, and the court having heard the evidence
j*nd argument of counsel, finds the issue In favor of the plaintiffs, Everet E.
McCarty, Evelyn E. McCarty, Terresa Wilson, John McCarty, Theron B.
McCarty, Louis McCarty, Jennie F. McCarty, Carrol C. McCarty, Charlotte E.
McCarty, Loula Babei-s, PInkey Lewis. Floyd Lewis, Millie Lewis, Beacher
Alison. Ada Wilson. Addle Wilson, Anderson McCarty, C. M. McCarty, James
A. McCarty, W. S. McCarty, Maggie McCarty, Mildred McCarty, T^ucile
McCarty, Frank McCarty. and James A. McCarty, jr., and against the plaintiffs,
Julia F. Stewart, Pearl Stewart, Mary Stewart, Frank Stewart, Ellen Stewart,
J>ortha L. Weaver, J. E. Weaver, James Weaver, Margaret Weaver, and Kate
^Veaver, on account of their being nonresidents of the Choctaw Nation.
It is therefore ordereil. adjudged, and decreed by the court that the aforesaid
philntlffs, In whose favor the court has found, be and are hereby declared to
be members of the Choctaw Nation, the plaintiff, E\elyn McCarty by inter-
marriage, and the other plaintiffs by blood; and that they be and are hereby
<1eclared and adjudged to be entitled to all the rights, privileges, imnnmltles,
and benefits as such members of the Choctaw Nation : and that the defendant,
Choctaw Nation, recognize said plaintiffs' rights to their full extent as herein
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 505
:idjudged and decreed; and that the clerk of this court furnish and transmit
to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes a certified copy of this judg-
ment ; and that said commission place the names of the said plaintiffs, as above
found for, open the roils as members of the Choctaw Nation, as adjudged
herein; and that said plaintiffs have and recover of and from the defendant,
(?hoctaw Nation, all their costs herein laid out and expended, for all of which
let execution issue.
It Is further ordered and decreed that the. plaintifTs as above found against
taJce nothing by their suits, and that the defendant have and recover of the
said plaintiffs its costs herein laid out and expended, for all of which let
execution issue.
United States op Ambbiga,
Indian Territory, centrnl district, ss:
I, B. J. Fannin, clerk of the district court of the United States for the central
district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
copy of an order mad^ by said court on the 26th day of August, 1897, as
appears from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, at my office in South
McAlester, in said district, this 7th day of March, 1903. ^
E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
By I. M. Dodge, Deputy,,
I>epabtment of the Intfrior.
CommiHsioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Eugene McCarty et al.
as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
DF.nSION.
It appears from the record herein and from the records in the possession of
the Commissioner to the Five (Civilized Tribes that application was made to the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes at Calvin, Ind T., on August S. 1S1H>. by
Eugene McCarty for enrollment of himself and his children, Marcellus Mcf^arty.
Rosa B. McCarty, Elbert McCarty, and Nannie L. McCarty, as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation. It further appears that written application was made to the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes on December 15, 1900, for the enroll-
ment of Josie McCarty as a citizen of the Chm'taw Nation.
It further appears from the records In the possession of the Commissioner
to the Five Civilized Tribes that the applicants, Eugene McCarty, Marcellus
McCarty, Rosa B. McCarty (as Rosa McCarty), Elbert McCarty, and Nannie
L. McCarty, were applicants to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
for admission to citizenship in the Choitaw Nation under the provisions of the
act of Congress approve*! June 10, 189(5 (29 Stats., 321), in 1896, Choctaw citi-
zenship case No. 27; that they wore denied such admission by the decision of
the Commission to the Five Clvlllzeii Tribes of December 1, 1S9C: that from
the decision of said commission an ap|)eal was taken to the United States Court
for the Central District of Indian Territory, which court, on August 26, 1897.
in the case entitled "James R. Kelley et al. r. The Choctaw Nation," case No.
78, rendered judgment therein, a copy of which is not found in the i>ossession
of this office; that on January 19, 1898, said court rendered another judgment
re-forming said judgment of August 26, 1897, so as to admit * ♦ ♦ Eugene
McCarty, Marcellus McCarty, Rosa Bell McCarty, Nannie l^u McCarty, and
Elbert McCarty * * * as citizens of the Choctaw Nation. This judgment
was subsequentlv vacatetl. set aside, and held for naught by a decree of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court on December 17, 1902, in the test case
of ** Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations or Tribes r. J. T. Riddle et al." Said
cause was subsequently certified to the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court,
created under the act of Congress approved July 1, 1JK)2 (32 Stat.. t>41>,
for a trial de novo, and on April 30, 1904, said citizenship court, in the case
entitled "James R. Kelley et al. v. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations"
(Choctaw citizenship case No. 27, South McAlester docket), rendered Its de-
cision therein, wherein It was ** ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petition
of the plaintiffs ♦ * * Eugene McCarty, .Marcellus McCarty, Rosa Bell
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
506 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
McCarty, Xanule MeCarty (or Nannie Lou McCarty), and Elbert McCarty
* ♦ * be denied, and that they be declared not citizens of the Choctaw
Nation, and not entitled to enrollment as such citizens, and not entitled to any
rights whatever flowing therefrom."
The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes on May 27, 1904, Issued an order
dismissing the application for the enrollment of Josie McCarty as a citizen by
blood of the Choctaw Nation for t^e reason that the application of her father,
Eugene McCarty, had been adversely determined by a decree of the Choctaw
and Chickasaw citizenship court of April 30, 1904.
It does not api^ear from the records in the possession of the Commissioner to
the Five Civilized Tribes that any of the applicants have ever been recognized
or enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw Nation by any duly constituted authority.
Under the regulations adopted by the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes January 2, 1906, there was filed on February 20, 1906, by Messrs. Cruce,
Cruce & Bleakmore, attorneys for the petitioners, a petition praying for the
enrollment of Eu/Jene McCarty, Theresa A. C. McCarty, Elbert McCarty, Nannie
L. McCarty, and Josie McCarty as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners, Elbert McCarty, Nannie L.
McCarty, and Josie McCarty, are the children of the petitioners, Eugene
McCary and* Theresa A. C. McCarty; that on October 18, 1892, the petitioner.
Eugene McCarty, filed with the national secretary of the Choctaw Nation a
petition praying for enrollment as a citizen by blood of said nation.
It does not appear from the records of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized
Tribes that any application was ever made for the enrollment of the petitioner,
Theresa A. C. McCarty, prior to the filing of the petition herein.
ORDER.
I am of the opinion that inasmuch as it does not appear from the records of
this office and is not alleged in the iietltion that the petitioners have at any
time occupied such a status as would entitle them to enrollment as citizens of
the Choctaw Nation, the application for the enrollment of Eugene McCarty,
Marcellus McCarty, Rosa B. McCarty, Elbert McCarty, and Nannie L. McCarty,
and the petition herein in so far as it relates to the i>etltion of Eugene McCarty,
Elbert McCarty, Nannie L. McCarty, and Josie McCarty should be denied under
the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stata, 641),
and it is so ordered.
I am further of tlie opinion that Inasnuich as no application was made for
the enrollment of tlie petiticmer, Theresa A. C. McCarty, as a citizen of the
ChtK'taw Nation within the time prescril)ed by law, and inasmuch as her
husband, Eugene McCarty, has been denied citizenship by the Choctaw and
Chickasaw citizenship court, the jietltion herein, in so far as it relates to the
petitioner. Theresa A. C. McCarty, should be denied under the provisions of
the acts of Congress approved July 1. 1902 (32 Stats., 641) and Aprtl 26, 1906
(Public No. 129), and it is so ordered.
(Signed) Tams Bixby,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Muskogee, Ind. T., ^cpfrmher 27, 1906.
Henry Brown et al., Chickasaw. Commission, No. D-251.
August 16, 1899. Original application by Henry Brown for the
enrollment of himself and his three minor children, LoTard, Jesse,
and Sallie Brown, as Chickasaws by blood.
It appears from the record that Henry Brown had 12 children in
all, but application was made for only the 3 youngest, apparently
through misunderstanding. At the time of the original application
the proceedings Avere in part as follows:
Q. You have children? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. How many? — A. Two.
Q. Some of thom married?— A. Two.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 507
Q. Give me the names of those that were bora since 1802 — the oldest one
born since that time. — A. Louis, he was born the day before I started to make
my application, therefore born before I was admitted in 1892.
Commissioner McKennon. He can not be enrolled.
Q. Next one? — A. Lovard, 3 years old.
Q. Next one? — A. Jesse, sir; 2 years old.
Q. Next one?— A. Sallle, 3 months old.
June 19, 1900. Additional testimony taken before the Commis-
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes. It appears from the uncontra-
dicted testimony of Henry Brown, principal applicant, that he is a
half-blood Chickasaw, his mother being Sallie Brown, a full-blood
Chickasaw Indian woman, and his father Tom Brown, a Ute Indian ;
that Henry Brown was bom in the Chickasaw Nation, and 52 years
of age at the time of the application in 1899; that he lived for a
while in Texas, where he married, and returned to the Chickasaw
Nation about 16 years before the date of the application to the
commission for enrollment, and that he lived in the Chickasaw Na-
tion continuously ever since his return.
It also appears from the record that on February 4, 1892, Henry
Brown went before a citizenship committee, appointed under an act
of the Chickasaw legislature approved November 14, 1889, and
made application for admission to citizenship in the- Chickasaw
Nation. Applicant states that the committee decided to admit to
citizenship himself and eight children, the names of whom are not
given.
A certified copy of the minutes of the session of the citizenship
committee, held on February 8, 1892, appears in the record, of which
the following is a literal copy:
Citizenship Ck)MMiTTKE Room,
Monday, Fehruary 8, 1892.
The committee, at 9 o'clock Monday morning. prevloii& to adjournment.
Roli call; quorum present. Minutes of Saturday read and interpreted.
Robert Newberry made a motion to adopt 41ie minutes of Saturday ; seconded
by Albert Louis. Motion called and carried.
The case of Henry Brown for citizenship was taken up and after due con-
sideration was disposed of.
Robert Newberry made a motion to accept the application of Henry Brown
for citizenship; seconded by Albert Louis. Motion called and carried.
Robert Newberry made a motion for the committee to adjourn until 9 o'clock
to-morrow morning; seconded by Albert Louis. Motion called and carrie<l.
(Signed) J. D. Collins,
Chairman.
Atte.st :
E. P. GOFORTH,
Clerk pro tempore.
I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and correct coi»y
of the minutes of the session of the Chickasaw citizenship committee held on
February 8, 1892, as found In the record of said comniittee in the possession of
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
T. B. Needles,
Commissioner.
Muskogee, Ind. T., July 16, 1902.
The testimony of Josiah Brown shows in general terms the pro-
ceedings in the matter of the application of Henry Brown for ad-
mission to citizenship before the committee. From this testimony,
as well as the testimony of other witnesses, it appears that the citizen-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
508 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKIiAHOMA.
ship committee passes favorably upon daimant's applicatioQ, but
that the matter was never finally pa«»d upon by the council. Tht
testimony is in part as follows :
Q. Do you know of the appointment ot a citizenship committee of whhch
Robert Newberry and J. B. Collins were members? — ^A. Zes, sir.
Q. Do you know something of the ajpsplicalion.of Henry Brown to that com-
mittee for citizenship? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q; Do yod^ know what the action of that committee was upon the application
of Hwu^' Brown ?r— A. I was inJGormed h^ paid his i hundred dollars^ and Robeiit
Newbf;rry moved, that they adopt him, and recognize him as a citizen.
Q. The motion carried? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what you know about, what was afterwards done with the work
of that committee?— A. The prosecuting attorney claimed that two of the metor
bers. of t^e committee were members of the legislature when the IHll pasaadi
and it liarred them from sitting on the committee.
Q. Wliat was the opinion of the attorney general as to the proceedings of
that committee? — A. That they were unconstitutional.
Q. Weo^ the proceedings of that committee, as to the application of Henri
Brown, eViGs presented to the legislature? — ^A. It is m^ understanding ttwit it
wasn't presented to the legislature.
in the testimony of the apf)licant on June 19, 1900, appear the
names of the children of applicant^ '^ bom of this marriage under
the a0B of 21 years and unmarried," as follows: Emma Brown, 1^
Ben Brown; 17; Belle Brown, 16: I>ee Btown, 14: Harlin Brown*
12; Hu^ Brown, 9; Ijewis Brown, 7;
Q. I want to know those that hare already been enrolled, or been before the
commission? — ^A. Leonard Brown, 4 Jrears; Jesse Brown, 3 years; and- Sallie
Browne. 1 year.
Included in the above are the names of 10 children, and apparently
the other 2 children (Brown testified he had 12 children in alt)
were over the a^e of 21 years, or married at the time application
was made^. and their names do not appear.
No application is made for the enrollment of the wife of claimant
(Mary brown, nee Briley), Sipplicant stating that she is "Choctaw
and Cherokee, but she has no way of proving it."
May 2, 1903. The commission rendered its decision denying the
application for the enrollment of Henry Brown, Lovard Brown,
Jesse Brown, and Sallie Brown, as citizens by blood of the Chicka-
saw Nation, on the gi'ound that the applicants had not been enrolled
by the tribal authorities, or admitted to Chickasaw citizenship by a
legally constituted court, or by the Commission to the Five Tribes.
A copy of said decision is attachecl hereto, marked " Exhibit A."
STATEMENT DY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
The uncontradicted evidence in the case shows beyond question
the Cliickasaw Mood, descent, tribal affiliation, and residence in the
Chickasaw Nation of all the applicants. Counsel for claimants re-
spectfully submit that the following-named persons, for whom ap-
plication was duly made, are entitled to enrollment as members by
blood of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians: Henry Brown, I^vard
Brown, Jesse Brown, and Sallie Brown.
That the following-named persons, who were minor children of
Henry Brown in 1000, and full brotliers and sisters of the above
named Lovard, Jesse, and Sallie Brown, are also entitled in equity
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIvAlZED TRIBES TN OKLAHOMA. 509
and good conscience to enrollmerit as members of the Chickasaw
Nation : Emma Brown, Ben Brown, Belle Brown, Dee Brown, Harlin
Brown, Hugh Brown, and Lewis (or Louis) Brown.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer 'ft liBE.
Tn the matter of the applioation of HenryBrown for the eorrollment of him-
self and his three minor children, Tjovard Brown, Jesse Brown, and Sail if
Brown, as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
DECISION.
It appears from the record in this case that Henry Brown appeared before
the commission at Durant, Ind. T., on August 16, 1899, and made personal appli-
cation for the enrollment of himself and his three minor children, Lovard.
Jesse, and Sallie Brown, as citizens by Mood of the Chicliasaw l^ation. •FiirCher
proceedings in the matter of said application were had at Atoka, Ind. T.. at
the session of the commission commencing August 28, and ending September 2,
1899; at "McAlester, Ind. T., on November 14, 1899; a*^ Colbert, Ind. T., on
June 19, 3900, and at Atoka, Ind. T., on December 10, 1900.
On an examination of the evidence submitted in this case and the^records of
the Chickasaw Nation in the possession of the commission, It does not appear
thtft the applicants herein have ever been enrolled by the tribril authorities of
the Chickasaw Nation as citizens of that tribe in Indian TerHtory; nor does
it appear that they have been admitted to Chickasaw citizenship by a legally
ertttstltttted coiirt or commtttcte of said nations, or by the Cdmmlssion to the
Vtr^ CfrlUzed Tribes, or by the United Stages court In Indian Territory, under
the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896 (29 Stat, 321).
It further appears that the principal applicant, Henry Brown, preserited his
(fititm to Chickasaw citizenship before the cltissenshlp committee authorized by
rth flc^ of the Chickasaw national legislature, approved November 14, 1889 (Con-
sti'^ution. Treaties, and Laws of the Chickasaw Nation, p. '24T), and that on
f^bruary 8, 1892, his application was granted by said committee; but on a
cawful Bearch of the records of the Chickasaw legislature it does udt appear
that the action of said commrtee has ever been considered or approved by said
legislature, as provided In sections 2 and 3 of said act of November T4, 1889,
and that the names of said appllcaiits do not aiifpear upon any of the tribal
Wflls made subsequent to said date. A certified copy of the minutes of the
session of said citizenship committee, held on February 8, 1892, is attached
Hereto and made a part of the record in this case.
'It is therefore the opinion of this commission that Heary Brown, Lovard
Btnwn, Jesse Brown, and Sallle Brown are not lawfully entitled to be enrolled
ts dtlKens by blood of Chickasaw Nation, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 21 of the act of Congress approved Juue 28. 1898 (80 Stat. 495), and
it is so ordered.
The Commission to the Five Civilized Tbibbb.
Department of the Inyiriob,
Commissioner to the Five OiviUeed Tribes.
In re application -for allotment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of Man-
dine Brown, bom on the 29th day of November, 1901. Name of father : Henry
firuwn, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. t>Jame of mdtlier: Mary Brown, k
iHrncitlfsen of the nation. Post office, Springer.
ATFIDAVIT OF MOTHEB.
State of Oklahoma, '(7ar/er Oonnty,
•I, Mary Brown, onath, state that I am 53 years of age and a noncltlzen of
the nation; that I am the lawful wife of Henry Brown, who is'a 'dttzen by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation ; that a female child was bom to me on the 29th
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
510 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OMAHOMA.
day of November, 1901; that said child has been* named Mandlne Brown, ^md
was living March 4, 190ft.
Maby (her x mark) Bbown.
Witnesses to mark:
EiLODA Gibson.
Leona CJox.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of December, 1910.
[seal.] Eloda Gibson,
Notary Public.
affidavit of attending physician or midwife.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County,
I, Henry Brown, a physician, on oath, state that I attended Mrs. Mary Brown,
wife of Henry Brown, on the 29th day of November, 1901 : tliat there was bom
to her on said date a female child; that said child was living March 4, 1906,
and is said to have been named Mandlne Brown.
H. B. Bbown.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] Eloda Gibson,
Notary Public.
affidavit of henry brown.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County. 8s:
Henry Brown, first being duly sworn, on oath states that he is the Identical
Henry Brown who applied to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
August 16, 1899, for enrollment as a Chickasaw citizen by blood, case No. ^1.
and who also appeared on June 19, 1900, before said commission, and who was
admitted by the citizenship committee of the Chickasaw Nation on November
8. 1892.
Affiant further states that when before the commission he gave the names
of all of his children, as follows: John Brown, Annie Douglas (n6e Brown),
Emma Brown. Ben Brown. Bell Brown, Dee Brown, Harlln Brown, Hugb
Brown, Louis Brown, Lovard Brown, Jesse Brown, and Sallle Brown.
Affiant further states that his son, John Brown, on the 9th day of April.
1899. lawfully married Hattie Taylor, and that the copy of a marriage license
hereto attached is a true and correct copy of the license under which said
John Brown married: that John Brown and Hattie Brown are the lawful
Iia rents of Henry Brown, Otto Brown, and Lester Brown, who, together with
their mother, Hattie Brown, are on the finally approved rolls of Chickasaw
citizens by blood and have received their allotment as such.
Affiant states that Annie Brown on January 16. 1896, was married to Miles
Douglas, and that a copy of marriage license hereto attached is a true and
correct copy of the license under which said Annie Brown was married; that
said Annie Douglas and Miles Douglas are the lawful parents of Mary
Douglas, age 13 years; Bell Douglas, age 10 years; Mandy Douglas, age 9
years; Nettle Douglas, age 8 years; and Albert Douglas, age 6.
Affiant further states that he personally appeared before J. W. Howell at
Ardmore some time during the month of November, 1908, who took his sworn
statement with reference to his claim to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation,
nnd that affiant stated to said Howell the names and ages of his children
as herein above named.
Affiant states that, to the best of his knowledge, no application was ever
made for the enrollment of the children of Annie Douglas, and that the failure
to make said application was due to the fact that his daughter assumed that
it was necessary for affiant's claim to first be established before she could
apply for the enrollment of her children.
H. Brown,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of December, 1910.
[seal.] Eloda Gibson, Notary Public.
My commission expres May 18, 1913.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 511
Mabbiaoe License No. 382.
United States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District, as:
To any person authorized by law to solemnize marriage — greeting :
Tou are hereby commanded to solemnize the rite and publish the bans of
matrimony between Mr. John Brown, of Woodford, in the Indian Territory,
aged 21 years, and Miss Hattie Taylor, of Woodford, in the Indian Territory,
aged 21 years, according to law, and do you officially sign and return this
license to the parties herein named.
Witness my hand and official seal, this 31st day of March, A. D. 1899.
[seal.] ' C. M. Campbell,
' Clerk of the United States Court.
cebtificate of marriage.
United States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District, as:
1, W. McKinney, a minister of the gospel, do hereby certify that on the
2d day of April, A. D. 1899, I did duly and according to law,' us commanded
in the foregoing license, solemnize the rite and publish the bans of matrimony
between the parties therein named.
AVitness my hand, this 2d day of April, A. D. 1899.
W. McKlNNEY,
My credentials are recorded in the office of the clerk of the United States
court in the Indian Territory, judicial division, boolc B.
Filed and duly recorded, this 12th day of April, 1899.
[seal.] C. M. i;jAMPBELL,
Clerk of the United States Court.
[Certificate of true copy.]
State of Oklahoma, Carter County,
I, B. F. Rogers, clerk of the county court In and for the county and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true, and com-
plete copy of the marriage license and certificate of marriage No. 382, as the
same appears on file and of record in my office.
Witness my hand and the seal of said court, this 6th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] B. F. Rogers.
Clerk of County Court.
Marriage License No. 870.
United States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
To any person authorized to solemnize marriage — greeting:
You are hereby commanded to solemnize the rite and publish the bans of
matrimony between Mr. M. D. Douglass, of Newport, in the Indian Terrltoiy,
aged 34 years, and MLss Annie Brown, of Woodford, in the Indian Territory,
nged 22 years, according to law, and do you officially sign and return this
license to the parties herein named.
Witness my hand and official seal, this 13th day of January, A. D. 1896.
[seal.] J as. W. Phillips,
Clerk of the United States Court.
certificate of marriage.
I'nited States of America, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I, W. McKinney, a minister of the gospel, do hereby certify that on the
16th day of January, A. D. 1896, I did duly and according to law, as commanded
In the foregoing license, solemnize the rite and publish the bans of matrimony
between the parties therein named.
Witness my hand, this 16th day of January, A. D. 1896.
W. McKinney,
A Minister of the OospeL
My credentials are recorded in the office of the clerk of the United States
court in the Indian Territory, second judicial division, book A, page 870.
Filed and duly recorded, this 15th day of February, 1896.
[seal.] JAS. W. PfllT.LIPS,
Clerk of the United States Court.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
512 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
[Certificate of true copy.]
State of Oklahoma, Carter County.
I, B. F. Rogers, clerk of the county court In aiid foi* the coimty and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true, and com-
plete copy of tjie marriage license and certificate of marriage Mo. 870, as the
same appears on tile and of record iu my office.
Witiieps my hand and the seal of said court, this Oth day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.1 B. F. ROGRRS.
Clerk of County Court,
John P. Holder et al., Chickasaw. Dawes Commission, No. 62.
United Statbs Couirr, No. 7T. OinzaENSHipOouRT, No. 42-T.
record.
September 10, 1896. Application made to commission for enroll-
ment of John P. Holder and 115 others, all claiming to be lineal
desoendsnts of Elizabeth Stewart, a Chickasaw Indian woman, and
Bledsoe Holder, who intermarried in the old Chickasaw Nation,
Miss., and reinoved to the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., with his femily
about 1849, stopping for several years in Missouri en route. William
L., Jackson A.^ and Benton A. Holder, children of Elizabeth and
Bledsoe Holder, and their children, grandchildren, and great-grand-
children are claimants herein, as are also the descendants of Benjamin
Stewart, brother of Mrs. Bledsoe Holder, and himself a Chickasaw.
The names of claimants -will appear hereafter.
The proof of descent and blood of the applicants is clear. From
about 1849 to about 1890 claimants lived part of the time in Texas
and part of the time in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations ; a ma-
jority of claimants resided in the nations in 1885, and 91 of those
who made application to the commission were residents in good faith
in 1896. Claimants were recognized as Chickasaws by the members
of the tribe and exercised all the rights of citizens of said nation. It
appears from the record that yj\ 1892 Judge Carter (father of Con-
gressman Carter) applied to the Chickasaw citizenship committee, ap-
pointed under the act of the legislature appi:oved November 14, 1889,
for the admission of these claimants ; that a favorable report was
made on said applications to the council, but that no action was taken
thereon by the council by reason of an opinion of the attorney general
of the Chickasaw Nation holding the committee to have been uncon-
stitutionally appointed by reason of the fact that two of the members
thereof were members of the coimciK and therefore not eligible to
serve as members of the committee. All cases acted upon by this
committee were rejected by the council under the opinion of the
attorney general. See more specific reference to work of this com-
mittee m the case of Henry Brown et al., Chickasaw claimants.
December 1, 1896. Applications of all claimants denied by com-
mission.
January 28, 1897. Case appealed to United States court, Ard-
more, and case considered on evidence before commission and addi-
tional testimony taken and recorded before master; attorneys for
nations present and examined witjiesses.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIV£ CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 513
An unsigned copy of the master's report in the files of the case is
as follows:
In the United States court, southern district, Indian Territory.
Juo. P. Holder et al. v. (^hickasjiw Nation.
On tills the 10th day of March. 1898. came on to be heard before me the
undersigned master in chancerj' the application of John P. Holder et al. for
admission to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation, and after hearing the evi-
dence and duly considering the evidence in support thereof, I am of the oplnioB
that the applicnnts hereafter named are entitled to be enrolled as citizens 6t
the Chickasaw Nation.
It appears from the evidence in the case that the applicants are the descend- •
ants of Elizabeth Colbert, a Chickaiiaw Indian by blood, who married a m^n by
the name of George Stewart; that the said Elizabeth Colbert and George
Stewart hnd a daughter by the name of Elizabeth Stewart, through whom
these applicants chilm that said Elizabeth Stewart married a white man by
the name of Bledsoe Holder: that said Bledsoe Holder and Elizabeth Stewart
had a number of children, among them being William L. Holder, Jackson A.
Holder, and Burton A. Holder; that the said Bledsoe Holder and wife lived
in the old Chickasaw Reservation in the State of Mississippi ; that they moved
with other Indians to the Indian Territory, but stopped with their children
in southwest Missouri and resided there about 20 years: tJiat they afterwards
came into the Indian Territory, and finally drifted to tiie northern border of
Texas, and remained there a number of years. It appears from the evidence
that the said Bledsoe Holder and Elizabeth Holder and their descendants, who
are concerned In this application, at all times claimed to be citizens of the
Chickasaw Nation, and that they lived In and atout the Chickasaw Natlcm
from time to time ever since they came west of the Mississippi J((iver, and that
they in fact have Chickasaw blood in their veins.
I find, therefore, that the following descendants of the above-named parties
are entitled to be enrolled as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation:
John P. Holder, Rosebud Holder, George Holder, John Holder. Minnie B.
Holder, Martha S. Holder, Marcla Holder, and Colbert Holder.
Benjamin G. Holder.
Elizabeth Looney, Burton Looney, Frankle R. Looney, William Walter
liooney, Thomas Jefl'erson Looney, F. E. Ijooney, Alex. Looney, Guy Looney, Roy
IxMmey, Ora Looney, and Cora Looney.
Milton E. Holder, Rebecca Holder, Thomas D. Holder. Calvin E. Holder, Harry
L. Holder, Clarie Holder, Frank S. Holder, Julia Holder, Ida Holder Ford,
Julietta May Ford, Grade Ford, George W. Holder, Almorine A. Holder, and
Arlle Holder; Racheal A. Young, William J. Young, Mary A. Walls, Agnes
Walls, Frank Walls, and Mary E. Walls; Mlnta Fitch, WilUtm Fitch, Wmiam
T. Young, and Albert Young.
Isaac B. Holder, Dennis Holder, Evans E. Holder, Roy R. Holder, Oliver R.
Holder.
Mary Louisa Little.
Jackson A. Holder, Luclnda Holder, Larrle Victoria Martlnus, Joseph Mar-
tlnus, Josephine Martlnus, Charles Martlnus, Reuben Arglle Holder, Theodocia
Belle Hedges, Little Hedges; Everett Lee Hedges, Nora Ivy Hedges, Ellen
Ellzfibeth Redenour, George J. Redenour, Calvin Alton Holder; Luclnda Elme-
llne Adams; Lyun Arglle Cobb, Emmet Laton Adams.
William Holder. Robert Holder. Albert Holder, R. Dud Holder, Myrtle Holder,
Maggie Lenore Holder, Nettie Hedges, Pearl Coke. Haney Coke: Boss Holder,
Elva Holder. Minnie Worbus, Bertha Worbus: John A. Looney, Ben \L Ix)oney,
Henneger Looney, and Leona Ix)oney; Burton A. Holder. Monroe Holder, Wil-
liam Holder. AJex B. Holder, Lemuel Holder. Mattle Holder, Cecil Holder,
Willie L. Holder, Racheal Holder Campbell, Zollle Barnes, Thomas L. Padgett.
F. P. Henry. Jessie Floyd Henry, and Myrtle Golden Henry.
I therefore recommend that the above-named applicants be admitted to citi-
zenship In the Chickasaw Nation.
Master in Chancery.
69282—13 33
Digitized by VjOOQIC
514 FIVE OIVILIZED TBIBBS IK OKLAHOMA.
March 15^ 1898. Judgment was entered confirming the master's
report (certified copy of judgment hereto attached).
The above decree admitted 93 of the 116 claimants, and rejected
the claims of 23.
March 15, 1898. Case appealed to United States Supreme Court.
Aumist 6, 1899. Mandate of United States Supreme Court trans-
mitted, directing decree of lower court to be enforced. Decision of
court reported in 174 United States.
December 17, 1902. Decree of United States court vacated by
decree of Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in " test case."
March 9, 1903. Case and all records and papers transferred to
citizenship court.
May 30, 1904. Attorney Ledbetter, for claimants, moved the court
to dismiss the cases of all claimants except George W. Holder, who
claims both as a blood and intermarried citizen. Motion denied.
No additional testimony offered. Case considered on record before
commission and United States court. No opinion in record.
June 29, 1904. Decree entered stating case was considered on " the
law and the evidence,'' denying all claimants.
Applications were alsc^ made to the commission, within the time
prescribed by law, for the enrollment of the following persons, whose
names do not appear in the judgment of the United States court, but
who are children and grand children of those thus admitted: Mary
Holder, Ollie Holder, J. Gould Holder, Lois Looney, Anna Lee
Looney, Abbie Holder, Autry Holder, Alpha Holder, Allen Holder,
Nellie Holder, Ester Holder, Luster Holder, Jewel Francis Holder,
Frank Ford, Clarence R. Ford, Doyle Lee Looney, Agnes L. Holder,
Viola Neta Holder, Bessie Elizabeth Holder. Deta Theresa Holder,
Frank E. Hedges, Lawrence A. Hedges, EflSe May Hedges, Earnest
Jackson Turpen, Ernest Walls, Lemy Chester Walls, vertie May
Walls, John Almorine Holder, Alvin Holder, William Franklin
Holder, Lawson Bledsoe Young, James Young, Robert Lee Young,
Gertie Fitch, Minnie Madill Fitch, Mary Fitch, Ceacle Marion
Looney, Iv>' Lolita Looney. William Alexander Hawk, Eva Louise
Looney, Jessie C. Adams, Otis T. Adams, Owen T, Adams, Viola
Jane Adams, Myrtle Bell Adams.
STATEMENT BY COUXSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
Counsel for claimants submit that as there is no evidence in the
record of this ^ase offered by the nations, that it must be conceded
that claimants are what the record shows them to be, Chickasaw
Indians by blood and residents of the nation long before 1896; that
those found to be entitled to enrollment by the United States court,
which decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court- of the United States,
should be enrolled, as well as the minor children for whom applica-
tion was duly made to the commission within the time prescrioed by
law. The claimants thus entitled are: John P. Holder, Rosebucl
Holder, George Holder, John Holder, Minni^ B. Holder, Martha S.
Holder. Marcia Holder, Colbert Holder, Benjamin F. Holder, Eliza-
beth Looney, Burton Looney, Frankie R. Looney, William Walter
Looney, Thomas Jefferson Looney, F. E. Looney, Alexander Looney,
Guy Tjooney. Eoy Looney, Ora Looney, Cora Looney, Milton E.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 515
Holder, Eebecca Holder, Thomas D. Holder, Calvin E. Holder,
Harry L. Holder, Clarie Holder, Frank S. Holder, Julia Holder,
Ida Holder Ford, Julietta May Ford, Gracie Ford, George W.
Holder, Almorine A. Holder, Arlie Holder, Rachael A. Young,
William J. Young, Maiy A. AValls, Agnes Walls, Frank Walk,
Mary E. Walls, Minta Fitch, William Fitch, William T. Young,
Albert Young, Isaac B. Holder, Dennis Holder, Evans E. Holder,
Roy K. Holder, Oliver R. Holder, Mary Louisa Little, Jackson A.
Holder, Lucinda Holder, Larrie Victoria Martinus, Joseph Martinus,
Josephene Martinus, Charles Martenus, Reuben Argile Holder, Theo-
docia Belle Hed^s, Lillie Hedges, Everett Lee ^edges, Nora Icy
Hedges, Ellen Elizabeth Ridenour, George J. Ridenour, Calvin Alipn
Holder, Lucinda Emeline Adams, Lynn Argile Cobb, Emmett Laton
Adams, William Holder, Robert Holder, Albert Holder, Dude Holder,
Myrtle. Holder, Maggie Lanore Holder, Nettie Hedge, Pearl Coke,
Harvy Coke, Boss Holder, Elva Holder, Minnie Worbus, Bertha
Worbus, John A. Looney, Ben M. Looney, Henneger Looney, Leona
Looney, Burton A. Holder, Monroe Holder, AVilliam Holder, Alexan-
der B. Holder, Lemuel Holder, Mattie Holder, Cecil Holder, Willie L.
Holder, Rachael Holder Campbell, Zollie Barnes, Thomas L. Padgett,
F. P. Henry, Jessie Floyd Henry, Myrtle jSolden Henry, Mary
Holder, OUie Holder, J. Gould Holder, Lois Looney, Anna Lee
Looney, Abbie Holder, Autry Holder, Alpha Holder^ Allen Holder,
Nellie Holder, Ester Holder, Luster Holder, Jewel Francis Holder,
Frank Ford, Clarence R. Ford, Doyle Lee Looney, Agnes L. Holder,
Viola Neta Holder, Bessie Elizabeth Holder, Deta Theresa Holder,
Frank E. Hedges, Lawrence A. Hedges, Effie May Hedges, Earnest
Jackson Turpen, Ernest AValls, Lemy Chester Walls, V ertie May
Walls, John Almorine Holder, Alvin Holder, AVilliam^Franklin
Holder, Lawson Bledsoe Young, James Young, Robert Lee Young,
Gertie Fitch, Minnie Madill Fitch, Mary Fitch, Ceacle Marion
Looney, Ivy Lolita Looney, William Alexander Hawk, Eva Louisa
Ix>oney. Jessie C. Adams, Otis T. Adams, Owen T. Adams, Viola
Jane Adams, Myrtle Bell Adams.
United States court judgment attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
In the United States CJourt, Southern District, Indian Territory, at Ardmoro.
Jno. P. Holder et al. v. Chiclcasaw Nation.
On this, the 10th day of March, 1898, came on to be heard before nie, the
undersigned master in chancery, the application of John P. Holder et al. for
admission to citizenship In the Chickasaw Nation, and after hearing the evi-
dence and duly considering the evidence in support thereof. I am of the opinion
that the applicants hereafter named are entitled to be enrolled as citizens of the
Chickasaw Nation.
It appears from the evidence in the case that the applicants are the descend-
ants of Elizabeth Colbert, a Chickasaw Indian by blood, who married a man
by the name of George Stewart; that the said Elizabeth Colbert and George
Stewart had a daughter by the name Elizabeth Stewart, through whom these
applicants claim ; that said Elizabeth Stewart married a white man by the name
of Bledsoe Holder ; that said Bledsoe Holder and Elizabeth Stewart had a num-
ber of children, among them being William L. Holder, Jackson A. Holder, and
Burton A. Holder; that the said Bledsoe Holder and wife lived in the old
Digitized by V^OOglC
516 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Clilekasaw Reservation In the State of Mississippi and left the State of Mis-
slsBippi with the other Indians en route to the Indian Territory, but that they
stopped with their children in southwest Mlssovrl and remained there about
20 years; that they afterwards came into the Indian Terrttory, and finally
drifted to the northern border of Texas and remained there a number of
years. It appears from the evidence that the said Bledsoe Holder and Elizabetli
Holder and their descendants who are concerned hi this application at all
times claimed to be citizens of Uie Chickasaw Nation, and that they lived in
end about the Chickasaw Nation from time to time ever aince they came west
of the Mississippi River, and that they in fact have Cliickasaw blood in their
veins.
I find, therefore, that the following descendants of the above-named parties
are entitled to be enrolled as dtiaens of tiie Chickasaw Nation :
John P. Holder, liosebud Holder, George Holder, John Holder, Minnie B.
HoMer, Martha S. Holder, Marcia Holder, and Colbert Holder.
Benjamin F. Holder.
Elizabeth Looney, Burton Looney, Frankle R. Looney, Will lam Walter, Looney,
Thomas Jefferson liOoney, P. E. Ix)oney, Alex looney, Guy Ix)oney, Ray Ix)oney,
Ora Looney, and Cora Looney.
Milton E. Holder, Rebecca Holder, Thomas D. Holder, Calvin E. Holder,
Harry L. Holder, Clarle Holder, Frank S. Holder, Julia Holder, Ida Holder
Ford, Julietta May Ford, Oracle Ford, George W. Holder, Almorine A. Holder,
and Arlie Holder; Rachael A. Young, William J. Young; Mary A. Walls,
Agnes Walls, Frank Walls, and Mary E. Walls; Minta Fitch, WiUiam Pitch;
Williajn T. YoHBg and Albert Young.
Isaac B. Holder, Dennis Holder, Evans E. Holder, Roy R. Holder, Oliver R.
Holder.
Mary Louisa Little.
Jackson A. Holder; Lucinda Holder, Larrie Victoria Martlnus, Joseph Mar-
tinns, Josephene Martlnus, Charles Martenus; Ruben Argile Holder, Theodocia
Belle Hedges, LilUe Hedges, Everett Lee Hedges, Nora Icy Hedges: Ellen CSiza-
beth Ridenour, George J. Ridenour. Calvin Alton Holder; Lucinda Emeline
Adams; Lynn Argile Cobb, Emmett Laton Adams.
William Holder, Robert Holder, Albert Holder, Dude Holder, Myrtle Holder,
Maggi Lanj^e Holder, Nettie Hedges, Pearl Coke, Harvy Coke; Boas Holder,
Elva Holder, Minnie Worbua, Bertha Worbus ; John A. Looney, Ben M. Looney,
Henneger Looney, and Leona Ix)oney; Burton A. Holder, Monroe Holder, Wil-
liam Holder, Alex B. Holder, Lemuel Holder, Mattie Holder, Cecil Holder,
Willie L. Holder, Rachael Holder Campbell, ZoUie Barnes; Thomas L. Padgett,
F. P. Henry, Jessie Floyd Henry, Myrtle Golden Henry.
I therefore recommend that the above-named applicants be admitted to citi-
zenship in the Chickasaw Nation.
Master to Chancery.
This Is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disiwsltlon of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a copy
of the report of the master in chancery dated March 10, 1898, in the matter of
the application of John P. Holder et al. for enrollment as members of the
Chickasaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
CommiaaUmer to the Five GivUiged Tribes,
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Chickasaw Records.
tbanscript of proceedings.
United States Coubt,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a Stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory, southern
district, begun and had In the court rooms at Ardmore, In the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, In the year of our Lord 1897.
Present: The honorable Hosea Townsend, judge of aild court.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES U^ OKLAHOMA. 517
On the 15th day of March, 1898, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the foflowlng, to wit :
John P. Holder ©t al. r. Chickasaw Nation. 77.
On this day .this cause came on to be heard upon the report of the master In
chancery, and it appearing to the court, after duly considering said report, and
the evidence in support thereof, and tlie exceptions thereto that the said
report ought to be confirmed :
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the repert of tlse
master in chancery in said cause be, and the same is hereby, confirmed; aad it
is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the following-named per-
sons are hereby adjudged to be citizens of the Chickasaw Nation and entitled
to be enrolled as citizens thereof:
John P. Holder, Rosebud Holder, George Holder, John Pearl Holder, Minnie
B. Holder, Martha 8. Holder, Marcia Holder, and Colbert Holder, Benjamin P.
Holder, Elizabeth Looney, Burton Looney, Frankle R. Looney, William Walter
Looney, Thomas Jefferson Looney, F. E. Looney, Alex. Looney, Guy Looney, Boy
Looney, Ora Looney, and Cora Looney, Milton E. Holder. Rebecca Holder,
Thomas D. Holder, Calvin B. Holder, Harry R. Holder, Olarle Holder, Frank
S. Holder, Julia Holder, Ida Holder Ford, Julletta May Ford, Grade Ford,
George W. Holder, Almorlne A. Holder, aiMi Alice Holder, Racheal A. Yomi^,
William J. Yonng, Mary A. Walls, Agnes Walls, Frank Walls, and Mary E.
Walls, Minta Fitch. William Fitch, William J. Young, and Albert Young, Isaac
B. Holder, Dennis Holder. Evans E. Holder, Roy R. Holder. Oliver R. Holder,
Mary Louise Little, Jackson A. Holder, Lonie Victoria Martenus. Joseph Mar-
tenus, Josephine Martenus, Charles Martenus, Reuben Arglle Holder, Theodosia
Belle Hedges, Llllle Hedges. Ernest liee Hedges, Nora Icy Hedges, Ellen, Eliza-
beth Rldenour, George JosejUi Rldenour, Cahin Alton Holder, Lulclnda Emellne
Adams, Lynee Arglle Cobb. Ernest Layton Adnms, William Holder, Robert
Holder, Albert Holder, Dude Holder, Myrtle Holder, Maggie I^inoro Holder,
Nettle Hedg«*. Pesrl Coke. Harvy Coke, Boss Holder, Blvra Holder, Minnie
Warbus, Bertha Warbus, John A. Looney, Ben M. Looney, Henneger I/)oney,
and Leona T^onev, Burton A. Holder, Monroe Holder, WiUlam Holder, Alex
B. Holder. I^mu'el Holder, Mattie Holder, Cecil Holder, Willie I.. Holder,
Racheal Holder Campbell. Zollle Barnes. Mary E. Padgett, Sallle Henry, Jessie
Floyd Henry, Myrtle Golden Henry, Samantha Looney. It is further adjudged
and decreed by the court that nil the other parties to this suit who applied
for citizenship bo. and thoy are hereby, ndjndp'ed not to be citizens of the
Chlckasftw Nation. To all that part of the foregoing Judgment and decree
which admits all of said applicants to citizenship In the Chtckasaw Nation,
the Chickasaw Nation, by Its attorneys In open court, duly excited.
HosEA Town SEND, Judge.
United States Coukt,
Inflinn Territory, ftoutbrrn diMrict, as:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of tbe Tnltod States rourt within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforewild, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court Journals of said court, as the
same appeal^ to me. ^ , , «, ^ ^, , #
In testimony whereof. I Imve hereunto sot my hand and nfnxod the seal or
said court at Ardmore this 12th day of March, 1003.
C. M. Campbell. Clei'k,
By N. H. McCoy, Def^uty.
This Is to certlfv that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw. Chickasaw, Cheroke^,
Creek, and Seminole tribes of Indians, and the dlsiwsUlon of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct coi>y of a certi-
fied copy of the Judgment of the court dated November 15, 1<*07, on file In this
office, in the matter of the enrollment of John P. Holder et al. as citizens of
the Chickasaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioticr to the Fire Cirilized Tribe.^.
By W. II. Anc.ell,
Cterk in Charge of Chieknsmc Reeorda.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
618 five civilized tribes in oklahoma.
Amanda Coyle et al. Choctaws. Commission, No. R-479.
Au^st, 1899. Amanda C!oyle appeared before the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes, at Atoka, and applied for enrollment as a
citizen by blood. She stated that she was 27 years old; that her
mother had been dead 24 years; that her mother was on the Choctaw
tribal rolls; that her father died when she was a year old, and that
he was a white man.
At the end of this brief examination Commissioner McKennon
stated :
As you are not on the Choctaw rolls your enrollment will be refused.
August 21, 1902. Amanda Coyle and her son, James Robert Coyle,
appeared before the commission at Muskogee and again applied for
enrollment as a citizen by blood.
She testified that she was bom in the Chickasaw Nation at the
old Dan Harris mill, on Rice Creek, and that she had lived in the
Chickasaw Natipn all her life; that her father was Daniel Harrison,
who had some Choctaw blood, but that she did not know exactly how
much ; that he died when she was a year old ; that her mother was
Mary Pierce, who was one-half Choctaw ; that both her mother and
father had lived in the Indian Territory all their lives; that she had
been married twice; that her first husband was Ulysses Grant; that
she married him when she was 14 years old and had one child by
him; that the child died, as did also her husband; that her second
husband was Lander T. Coyle, and that James Robert Coyle was
her son; that a white woman named Laura Stevens raised her and
called her by her mother's name, Pierce; that she was known as
Amanda Pierce.
At the conclusion of her testimony she offered the affidavits of
Dixon Gibson, Patsy Poff, Dr. Long, and S. D. Lawrence, which
were accepted by the commission and made a part of the record.
Dixon Gibson makes oath that he is 40 years old, an enrolled
citizen of the Choctaw Nation; that he knew Mary Pierce, and that
she was a half-breed Choctaw, enrolled and recognized as such at
the time of her death; that Mary Pierce had a daughter named
Amanda Pierce; that he knows the said Amanda Pierce well; that
she has always resided in the Chickasaw Nation and is now married
to a white man named Coyle, and lives at Emet, Ind. T.
Patsy Poff makes oath that she is 70 years old, an enrolled Choc-
taw citizen by blood; that she knew Mary Pierce, who was a half-
breed Choctaw Indian, enrolled and recognized as such at the time of
her death; that in 1872 she waited on Mary Pierce, as a midwife,
and that the said Mary Pierce gave birth to a female child, after-
wards named and known as Amanda Pierce; that she has known
Amanda Pierce contiouously since her birth; that Amanda has al-
ways resided in the Chickasaw Nation and now lives with Her hus-
band, L. T. Coyle, at Emet, Ind. T.
Dr. Long makes oath that he is a regular practicing physician;
that he attended Mrs. L. T. Coyle when she gave birth to a male
chHd.
Silas D. Lawrence makes oath that he is about 59 years old, a citi-
zen of the Choctaw Nation by blood ; that he knew Mary Pierce, who
was a half-breed Choctaw woman; that she had a daughter named
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 519
Amanda Pierce; that Mary Pierce died about 24 years ago in the
Chickasaw Nation, on Rush Creek, in Pickens County.
July 31, 1903. Decision of Commission to the. Five Civilized
Tribes, in which it is stated that the names of the applicants do
not appear upon any of the tribal rolls, and concludes as follows :
It Is therefore the opinion of the commission that the application for the
enrollment of Amanda Coyle and James Robert CJoyle as citlzeis by blood
of the Choctaw Nation should be denied, under the provisions of section 21 of
the act of Congress approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stats., 495), and it is so
ordered.
July 31, 1903. Kecord transmitted to the department.
November 28, 1903. The record returned to the commission by the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs calling attention to the fact that
there is considerable evidence in the record tending to show that
the mother of the principal applicant was a Choctaw, and enrolled
as such, and that there was no evidence submitted tending to show
that this is not so. And the commission was directed to examine the
tribal rolls and advise the Indian Office whether the name of the
mother of the applicant appears thereon.
December 29, 1903. The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
advises the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that the 1885, 1898, and
1896 Choctaw rolls had been examined, and that the name of the
mother of the principal applicant did not appear thereon.
February 27, 1904. The Secretary advised that commission as
follows :
The Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs recommends that your decision
be concurred in, finding no reason to disturb your decision : it is hereby affirmed.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for claimants first respectfully direct attention to the
solemn farce played by the learned Government officers in this case ;
the record clearly shows that the mother of the principal applicant
died in 1875 and was recognized and enrolled as a citizen at that time.
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs directs the Commissioner to the
Five Civilized Tribes to examine the tribal rolls to see if her name
appears thereon. The Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes
advises the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that they have examined
the roll of 1885, made 10 years after the death of the party whose
name was sought; the 1893 roll, made 18 years after the death of the
party whose name was sought ; the 1896 roll, made 21 years after the
death of the party whose name was sought, and that her name did
not appear on any of these rolls. Upon receiving the report the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs advised the Secretary of the search
of the rolls named and the failure to find thereon the name of appli-
cant's mother, and the Secretary, discoverinj? no reason whj' other
rolls should be examined, affirms the decision of the commission
denying applicants. There were rolls of Choctaws in the custody
of the Secretary at Washinei^on made prior to the date of the death
of applicant's mother and tnere is now in the office of the Commis-
sion to the Five Civilized Tribes a complete roll of all the counties
of the Choctaw Nation for the year 1868. made four years prior to the
death of applicant's mother.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
520 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
But counsel submit that applicants should be enrolled whether
their names appear on said rolls or not, as they are undouMedly of
Choctaw blood; born to the allegiance of the Choctaw Nation, and
lifelong residents thereof.
Those entitled to enrollment are : Amanda Coyle and James Robert
Coyle.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Lee.
Aleck Brown et al., Chickasaws. Dawes Commission, No. 87.
September 6, 1898. Application made at Stonewall, Ind. T., for
enroUnient of Aleck Brown.
January 22, 1906. Further testimony taken, in which it is shown
that applicant is a citizen by blood oi the Cnickasaw Nation, and
that he is a grandson of Kelo Brown, whose name appears at No,
4972 on the finally approved roll of citizens by blood of the Chicka-
saw Nation. It appears that the mother of this applicant is Temene,
or Tamena, and that lier name appears on the Chiacasaw tribal rolls
as a full-blood Chickasaw Indian, and that she died some time
between 1890 and 1895.
Sibbie or Seber Johnson, half sister of claimant, made original
application at Stonewall, Ind. T., September 6, 1898. Applicant was
born and raised in Nation.
January 9, 1906. Further hearing before the commission, at which
time it was alleged that Seber Johnson was entitled to enrollment
as a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, The records show
that the applicant appeared to be a full-blood Indian and that she
testified through an interpreter. It app^rs that die is a half sister
of Aleck Brown and that her mother and his mother was Temene or
Tamena, that her father is Kaokubby Lewis, deceased. Her half
sisters and brothers by the same mother, Kitty Smith, Holmes, Car-
rie, and Ebatambby Johnson, appear opposite Nos. 4917, 4919, 4920,
and 4921, respectively, upon the final approved roll of citizens by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
February 26, 1907. Application for enrollment refused by com-
mission; denied because applicant's name does not appear on the
Chickasaw tribal rolls.
March 4, 1907. Action of commission was approved by the
department. ,
Attorneys for claimant respectfuly submit that as both Aleck
Brown and Sibbie (or Seber) Johnson are children of Temene, or
Tamena, a full-blood Chickasaw enrolled by the tribes, and as the
other children of Temene or Tamena are duly enrolled on the final
Chickasaw rolls by blood, that claimants are in equity and good con-
science clearly entitled to enrollment. Copy of the decision and the
examination records herewith attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 521
BECOBD OF EXAMINATION.
In the matter of the npplicatiou of Aleck Brown and Seber Johnson for
enrollment as Chickasaw freedmen.
Aleck Brown being sworn says (Stonewall, September 0, 1898) : I am 2S
years old. My mother's name was Temenee. I have a sister, Seber Johnson.
Becky Mukluntnbby being sworn says (Stonewall, Sept. 6, 1898) : I know
Aleck Brown and Seber Johnson. Their mother, Temenee, belonged to Shoshee.
'They went north at the beginning of the war and returned in four or five years.
They returned to Fort Gibson in' 1865 and remained there until the fall of
1866.
Aaron Newberry being sworn says (Stonewall, Sept. 6, 1898) : I know Aleck
Brown and Seber Johnson. They returned to Fort Gibson in 1865 and remained
there through the winter and until the fall, l.S(56.
Ashway Porter being sworn says (Stonewall, Sept. 6, 1898) : I am 44 years
old. I know Temenee the mother of Aleck Brown and Seber Johnson. She
was a slave and was owned by a man by the name of Logan. He was the
l<^t one of the heirs of the family to whom she belonged. Logan died during
the war. When he died they lived around with the people and went north
into Kansas. They returned the year after the surrender. I can not tell
whether it was the year of the surrender or the year after, but when the news
of peace came, they returned. I do not know what time of the year it was.
They remained at Fort Gibson about one year. They were there one winter
and one summer. They were there the summer after the winter they came.
The following winter they returned here.
Simon Wolf being sworn says (Stonewall, Sept. 7, 1898) : I know Aleck
Brown and Seber Johnson. I know their mother, Temenee. I have known
her 40 years. She belonged to Logan. He died in Kansas in 1862. Temenee
was then like an orphan and wandered around. Sometimes she was with me
and sometimes with others that went to Kansas. They came back and stopped
in the Creek Nation after peace was made, and remained there until 1867.
Some of those who went North returned here near Boggy, and one of them
was killed. The others then went back North. It was said that they were
going to kill all that had gone North, and for that reason they did not come
down into this country. For that reason I did not come here myself.
This woman Temenee was tbe slave of I>ogan, who died in 1862. Her two
children, Aleck Brown and Seber Johnson, are part Indian. It appears that
she did not return to the Territory from Kansas, where they had gone during
the war, until 1867.
[Indorsed: Aleck Brown and Seber Johnson. In re application for enroll-
ment as Chickasaw freedmen.]
Department of the Interior,
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Muskogee, Ind. T., January 9, 1906.
In the matter of the alleged application for the enrollment of Sibble Johnson
as a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
Applicant not represented by attorney.
No appearance on behalf of the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw
Nations.
This testimony taken subject to protest of the attorneys for the Nations.
The applicant being a full blood, personally presents herself before the
commissioner at his office at Muskogee, Ind. T., on this 9th day of January,
1906, being accompanied by John Finley.
The applicant, Sibbie Johnson, being first duly sworn through John Finley,
duly qualified interpreter, testified as follows:
Examination by commissioner:
Q. What is your name? — ^A. Sibbie.
Q. Sibbie what?— A. Johnson.
Q. How old are you?— A. Thirty-five.
Q. Where do you live? — ^A. Choctaw Nation.
Q. What is your post office. — A. Citra.
Q. Where was you bom? — A. Canadian.
Q. In the Choctaw Nation?— A. Chickasaw Nation.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
622 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. You mean you was bom on the Canadian River? — A. On the Chickasaw
side.
Q. What is your mother's name? — ^A. Ta-me-na.
Q. What is your father's name? — ^A. Scott Johnson.
Q. Is your father living?^— A. Scott Johnson is my stepdaddy. My daddj- is
dead.
Q. What is your father's name? — A. I don't know. I never seen my daddy,
I was little when my daddy died, but his name was Kaokubby Lewis.
Q. You say Scott Johnson is your stepfather; Is that right? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Holmes Johnson your half brother? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now what is the name of your other half brothers and sisters? — A. Kittle.
Q. What is her name now? — A. That's all I know.
Q. Don't she go by the name of Kittle Smith now?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Carrie Johnson. — A. Sister.
Q. Who is Ebatomby Johnson?— A. Brother.
Q. Have you ever made application to the Dawes Commission to be enrolled
as a Chickasaw? — A. No, sir.
Q. Where was you living in 1898 when the Dawes Commission was enroll-
ing the Chickasaws in the Chlckastiw Nation, — ^A. Living in the Chickasaw
Nation.
Q. AJid you didn't go to the Dawes Commission to be enrolled? — A. I been
there.
Q. Where?— A. Went to Stonewall.
Q. Did you go to the Dawes Commission when they were at Stonewall?—
A. I been there.
Q. What did they do when yon was there? — A. I don't know what they said-
Nobody there was old enough to tell anything. Said she didn't know what to
say.
Q. You say you have lived in the Choctaw and Cliickasaw Nations all your
life? — ^A. Bom from the Chickasaw Nation and raised In the Chickasaw Nation;
father's back In the Choctaw Nation.
Q. Have you ever drawn any money that was paid to the Choctaws or Chick-
asaws?— ^A. No, sir.
Q. Ever try to draw any money? — A. No, sir.
Q. Was your mother, Ta-me-nn, a Chickasaw Indian? — A. She was half
Chickasaw.
Q. What else?— A. Daddy Is a Chickasaw.
Q. Not talking about her daddy. (To Interpreter.) She said her mother
was half Chickasaw. What else was she? — A. Half Chickasaw, and in English
I think they call It freedman; half freedmau.
Q. Was you ever a slave? — A. I don't know nothing about that.
Q. Was your mother a slave? — A. I don't know.
Q. W^ho was your father? — A. Father was a Choctaw — full-blood Choctaw.
Q. Was you ever known by any other name than Sibble Johnson? — A, No.
Q. Have you got any brothers and sisters that were enrolled as Choctaws,
the children of Kaokubby Lewis? — A. That's all; hasn't got any more. I am
the only daughter.
This applicant has every appearance of being a full-blood Indian; unable .to
speak the English language, and this examhiation has been conducted througn
a duly sworn Chickasaw Interpreter.
Applicant claims that she is a full-blood Chlckasiiw Indian, born In the
Chickasaw Nation, and has resided continuously in the Choctaw and Chicka-
saw Nations since the date of her birth. She alleges that she was never known
by any other name than Sibble Johnson, and a careful examination of the
tribal rolls of the Chickasaw Nation in the jmssession of this office falls to dis-
clo.se that she has ever been enrolled as a citizen by bloiHl of the Chickasaw
Nation. *
While the applicant claims to have been before the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes at Stonewall. Ind. T., In 1898, there Is no record of any appli-
cation ever having been made by her or on her behalf for enrollment as a citi-
zen of the Chickasaw Nation prior to December 25, 1902.
Special reference is made In this matter to Chickasaw roll card, field No. 132,
and to the name of Scott Johnson upon the final roll of Chickasaws by blood,
opi>oslte No. 390, and whom the applicant states is her stepfather, and to
Kittle Smith. Holmes, Carrie, and Ebatamby Johnson, Chickasaw roll by blood,
Nos. 4917, 4919, 4920. and 4021, respectively, the children of Scott Johnson and
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE C5IVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 523
Ta-me-na, deceased, and whom the applicant alleges are her half brothers and
sisters by the same mother, Ta-me-na.
Ta-me-na appears upon the records of this office as having been a full-blood
Chickasaw Indian and to have died some time between 1890 and 1895.
Albert G. McMillam, being duly sworn, states that as stenographer to the
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, he reported the proceedings had in
the above-entitled cause on the 9th day of January, 1906, and that the above
and foregoing is a full, true, and correct transcript of his stenographic notes
thereof.
Albert G. McMillam.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of January, 1906.
Mtban White, Notary Public,
Dep.\btment of the Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Muskogee, Ind. T., January 22, 1906.
In the matter of the application of Aleck Brown for enrollment as a Chickasaw
freedman.
Applicant appears in person.
No proof of service of notice of the submission of testimony in the above-
entitled cause on the attorneys for tiie Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations is
presented.
Aleck Brown, being first duly sworn, testifies as follows through a duly sworn
interpreter :
By the Commissioner:
Q. What is your name? — ^A. Aleck Brown.
Q. How old are you? — ^A. Thirty-eight or thirty-nine.
Q. Where do you live? — ^A. Choctaw Nation.
Q. How long have you lived there? — A. I live there on the line of the Choctaw
and Chickasaw Nations.
Q. How long have you lived there? — A. Born there and raised there.
Q. Have you a sister named Seber Johnson? — A. Yes, sir; Slbble Johnson.
Q. Is she living?— A. Yes.
Q. How old is she?— A. We haven't got it down in years, but I think she is
about 30.
Q. Is she younger than you. — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was she bom? — A. In the Chickasaw Nation.
Q. Were you and your sister Seber or Slbble Johnson both born after the
slaves were freed?— A. Yes. long afterwards.
Q. What Is your father's name? — A. Mitchell Brown.
Q. Is he living?— A. No.
Q. How long has he been dead?— A. He died when I was a little baby; I don't
know when.
Q. What was Mitchell Brown?— A. I didn't see him: I was a little baby.
Q. Do you know anything about your father?— A. I heard the name, that's
all.
Q. Don't you know anything about him? — A. No, sir.
Q. Who was the father of your sister Seber or Sibbie Johnson?— A. Scott
Johnson.
Q. Then Sibbie Johnson is only your half sister? — A. Had a different father,
but same mother.
Q. Who was your mother? — A. Tamenee Johnson.
Q. Is she the mother of Sibbie Johnson, too?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. You and this half sister of yours, Sibbie Johnson, claim to be entitled to
enrollment as Chickasaw freedmen. do you not?— A. We claim to be Chlckasaws
by blood.
Q. Have you or this sister of yours ever in any manner been recognized by
the Chlckasaws as Chickasaw Indians; ever drawn any money as Chlcka-
saws?— ^A. No ; we have not.
Q. Never been on any roll as a Chickasaw, have you?— A. I never drew any
money.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
524 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IK OKLAHOMA.
Q. Was you ever enrolled with the Chickaaow Indians when they were mafe-
Ing the roll? — A. Never was on the rolls.
Q. Now, you say you don*t know anything about your father; is that cor-
rect?— ^A. I never seen him.
Q. Don*t know who he was? — ^A. Don't know who he was — only Just heard
his name.
0. Who was the father of your half sister, Sibble Johnson? — ^A. He was
named Johnson.
Q'. Do you know anything about him? — A. I know him — Scott Johnson.
Who was Scott Johnson? — ^A. Chickasaw.
Where is SIbbie Johnson now? — ^A. She is living in the Choctaw Nation
now.
I>fcd she ever draw any money? — ^A. No, sir.
Was she ever enrolled as a Chickasaw — as a citizen. A. No, sir.
Q. Who was your mother? — A. Temenee Johnson.
Q. Was she a slave? — ^A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know anything about your mother? — ^A. I know my mother.
9. Is she living?— A*. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is she living? — A. Chickasaw Nation.
Q. Does she go by the name of Temenee Johnson now? — A. Yes, air.
Q. Where is your mother living? — ^A. Chickasaw Nation.
Q. Has she ever made an application to be enrolled? — A. I don't know.
Witness excused.
IDhts applicant, Aleck Brown, has the appearance of being an admixture of
Indian and negro blood. He is unable to speak the English language, aod the
examination has been conducted through a Chickasaw interpreter. It appeals
that he has l)een a member of the so-called ** Snake " faction in the Chicfeaaaw
Nation, of which his mother, Temenee Johnson, Is also a member. It doM ndt
appear that any application has been made by Temenee Johnson for enrollment
as a Chickasaw Nation or Chickasaw freedman.
Olga Petrofif, a stenographer to the Cownnisslonor to the Five Civilized Tril^es,
on oath states that she correctly reported the proceedings had in the above-
entitled cause and that the foregoing Is a full, true, and correct transcript of
her stenographic notes thereof.
Oloa Petboft.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of January, 1906.
Myban White, Xotarp Public.
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to tiik Five Civilized Thibrs.
In the- matter (if the applliMlion for the enrollment of Alex Brown et al. as
Chlekasjiw freedmen.
DECISION.
It appears from the record herein that on Sei)tember C, 1898, application was
made to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for the enrollment of
Aleck Brown and Seber (or Sibble) Johnson as Chickasaw freedmen.
It further appears from the record herein that Aleck Brown was bom in
about the year 1867 and Is the son of Mitchell Brown (now deceased) and
Temenee (or Tamena) Johnson (now deceased) ; and that the applicant, Seber
(or Sibble) Johnson was bom about the year 1S70 and is the daughter of
Kaokubby Lewis (now deceased), an alleged Chickasaw by blood, and Temenee
(or Tamena) Johnson, above mentioned.
It Is alleged on behalf of the applicants that Temenee (or Tamena) Johnson
was during the War of the Rebellion the slave of a Chickasaw IndlaiL The
evidence, however, shows that at the date of the treaty of Fort Smith she
was not a resident of either the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nations.
It does not appear from the record herein or from the records In the posae*-
alon of this office that either of said applicants has ever been recognized or
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 525
enrolleil by tlie CSiickasaw tribal antborlties afi a member of the CHifckasaw tribe
or admitted to Chickasaw dttzemhlp by any daly constituted atlthority.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the application of the enrollment of Aleck
Brown and Seber (or Tibbie) Johnson as Chickasaw freedmen and as citizens
by blood of the Chickasaw Nation should be denied, under the provisions of tbe
act of Congress approved June 2^ 1898 (80 Stats., 495), as it is so ordered.
, CofmrUssiomr'
MiJflKOOEE, IND. T., February 26* 1907.
No. 16.
Edward J. Hornb et al.
Dnwte Commission, No. 1410. Unified States court, No. ^, South
McAlester. Citbseaaship court, No. 83.
S^tember 9, 1896. Original application filed for entollinent of
Ed^ward J. Home and wife, Joan Home, Icy D. O. Home, Victdria
D. Home, James O. Home, Charles S. Home, Commie E. Horne.
Mary E. Home, Sarah E. Home, all claiming right to enrollmexit as
Cbootaws by blood, except Joan Hon^e, who claimed as a cstisen by
intormarriage.
September 19, 1896. Answer filed by attorneys for nations, object-
i^ to the consideration of the Cftse by oommission, because ^ the €$vi-
dence herein ^ows that claimant has applied for citizenship to the
Choctaw tribunal and that his claim is still pending there."
Edward J. Home in his petition alleges that he is of one-fourth
Choctaw blood, derived from his motbar, Mary Home, formerly
Mary Logan, daughter of Dayis Logan, a full-blood Choctaw Indian ;
that he was bom in the Indian settlement in Mississippi, came to the
Iiidian Territory in 1892, and has been ever since a bona iBde resident
of the Choctaw Nation ; that in 1892 he applied to the Choctaw i^un-
cii at Tuskahoma, Ind. T., for the enrollment of himself and family,
and deposited $100 with the national treasurer as required by law;
tiiat his claim was referred to a citizenship committee, which, after
hearing his testimony, recommended that he be admitted and he and
his children enrolled as members of the Choctaw tribe. Attached
to the petition is a certificate reading as follows :
To all whom these presents shall come^ greeting:
This is to certify that E. J. Home et al.. having had the case for citizenship
before the committee on citizenship at Tufekahoma, Ind., T., at the Oetobeir
session, A. D. 1892. and the committee consist of L. H. Williams, diairinan of
the committee; D. A. Homer, Joseph Thompson, Noel James, C. H. Jo&es.; ai^
afte^ hearing the evidence allowed the same favorably.
Given under my hand this 10th day of December, A. D. 1892.
Henry Btiwgton,
Olerlc Committee on Citizenship.
It appears from the record that a bill was drafted for the enroll-
ment of claimants and introduced in the Choctaw council in 1892;
tixat in the bill the names and ages of the children did not appear of
record; that objection was made to it on this ground, and that it was
passed over; that in 1895 a bill was drafted mserting the names of
the children, but the council decided that all such unfinished cases
Digitized by VjOOQIC
526 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
had to be ajgain passed on by the committee. A copy of the bill
appears in the record. The comicil record shows :
TUSKAHOMA, IND. T.,
October 20, 1892.
The committee met, a quorum present, and the petition of E .J. Home at a!,
was presented by their attorney. A. Telle read the petition, which was inter-
preted by the clerk. A. Telle presented a receipt for $100. A. Telle Introduced
some testimony and E. J. Home was sworn in by the clerlt.
Testimony taljen.
After hear in)? the evidence they allowed them to be recognized, and the
petition was approved by the chairman, L. H. Williams. The applicants are
as follows : * * ♦, E. J. Home, and six children.
Attested :
Henry Byington,
Clerk Citizenship Committee.
Accompanying the petition are the affidavits of Thomas Green-
wood, S. P. Perry, Mary Ann Metcalf, Nancy E. Home, Martha E.
Gregory, E. J. Home, and Sam Perry, all stating of their own per-
sonal knowledge the Choctaw Indian blood and descent of the claim-
ants and their relationship to Mary Home, through whom all claim.
December 8, 1896. Commission denied application. No decision.
Application stamped " Denied."
January 22, 1897. Case appealed to the United States court at
McAlester. Case heard on record before commission and additional
testimony taken before master.
August 24, 1897. A decree was entered decreeing the following
persons citizens of the Choctaw Nation: E. J. Home, Joan Hornp,
Icy D. O. Home, Victoria D. Home, James O. Home, Charles S.
Home, Commie E. Home, Mary E. Home, Sarah E. Home.
Certified copy of the decree hereto attached.
December 17, 1902. Decree of the United States court vacated by
decision of citizenship court in " test case."
March 30, 1903. Cfase transferred to citizenship court by claimants
and case heard upon record before commission and United States
court and upon additional testimony offered by claimants in citizen-
ship court.
March term, 1904. Opinion written by Spencer B. Adams, chief
5"udge, signed by Henry S. Foote, but which was not signed by Walter
J. Weaver, holding the claimants not entitled to enroflment as Choc-
taw Indians.
March 28, 1904. Decree entered denying the claimants. The state-
ments of fact as set out in the opinion of the court are erroneous,
and in many instances exactly opposite to the statements made by
the witnesses. From the record the blood, descent, tribal affiliation,
and residence in the nation since 1892 are fuUj^ established.
Applications were submitted to the commission prior to March 4,
1906, for the enrollment of newborn children in the above case, as
follows: J. P. Davis, son of Icy D. O. Home; Joe Ellen Home, Juel
Home, minor children of E. J. Horne; Cecil Smith Pyle, Thelma
Home Pyle, minor children of Victoria D. Home.
Said applications were rejected on May 25, 1904, for the reason
that the applications of the persons through whom they claimed had
been rejected by the citizenship court.
Counsel respectfully submit that the following persons, whose
degree of Choctaw blood is shown upon Choctaw field card, No. 3877,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
PIVB OIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 527
prepared by the commission, should be enrolled : Edward J. Home,
one- fourth ; Joan Home, one-eighth ; Isedora Home, three-sixteenths ;
Victoria D. Home, three-sixteenths; James O. Home, three six-
teenths; Charles S. Home, three-sixteenths; Commie E. Home, three-
sixteenths; Mary E. Home, three-sixteenths; Sarah E. Home, three-
sixteenths; Joe Ellen Home, three-sixteenths; Juel Home, three-
sixteenths; Cecil Smith Pyle, three thirty-seconds; Thelma Home
Pyle, three thirty-seconds; J. P. Davis, three thirty-seconds.
Copy of judgment of United States court attached.
EespectfuUy submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
United States of Amebica, Indian Territory, Central District, as:
In the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Central District, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory,
on the 24th day of August, A. D. 1897.
Present: The Hon. William H. H. Clayton, Judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
JUDGMENT.
E. J. Home et al. v. Choctaw Nation. 29.
On this the 24th day of August, 1897, the same being one of the regular
judicial days of the April, 1897, term of court, this cause came on to be heard,
whereupon the plaintiffs and defendant announced ready for trial; and the
court, having heard the testimony and argument of counsel, and being well
and sufficiently advised in the premises, doth find that the plaintiffs, E. J.
Horne, Joan Home, Icy D. O. Home, Victoria D. Home, Jnmes O. Home,
Charles S. Home, Commie E. Home. Mary E. Home, and Sarah E. Horne
are descendants of a member of the Choctaw Nation by blood and are entitled
to be placed upon the roll as members by blood of the Choctaw Nation tribes
of Indians.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiffs,
R J. Horne, Joan Home, Icy D. O. Home, Victoria D. Home, James O. Home,
Charles S. Home, Commie E. Horne, .Mary E. Home, and Sarah B. Horne
have and recover of and from the Choctaw Nation, and that they, and each of
them, be granted aU the rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits as enjoyed
by members by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and that the Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes place the names of said plaintiffs upon the rolls of the
Choctaw Nation as members thero<»f by blood, and that the Choctaw^ Nation
recognize the rights of these plaintiffs to their full extent, and that the clerk of
this court furnish the said Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes with a
certified copy of this judgment, and that the plaintiffs have and recover of the
defendant all their costs herein exp»4ided, for all of which let execution issue.
The within is a true copy from the record of an order by said court on the
24th day of August, A. D. 1897.
[BEAL.l E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am, the officer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw. Cherokee,
Creek, and Semionles Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of the
said tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a
certified copy of the judgment of the court dated August 24, 1897, on file in
UUs office in the matter of the claim of E. J. Horne et al. for enrollment as
members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
J. Geo. Wright, .
Commissioner to the Fire CivUized Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records.
Dated at Muskogee, Okla., this 17th day of October, 1910.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
528 five civilized tribes in oklahoma.
Kate Gamel et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 24. United States court, No. 109. Choctaw-
Chickasaw citizendiip court. No. 4.
record.
September ^, 1896. Application filed for the admission of Kate
Gamel and 20 others to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. The ap-
plication sets out that Kate Gamel, leading petitioner, and through
whom all applicants claim, is a daughter oi Col. John Rutledge and
Betsy Helm, a half-blood Choctaw Indian woman. Kate Gamel
statiCs under oath :
My father was Col. John Rutledge, a white man, nud a citizen of the United
States. He came to this country from Georgia. Hq met my mother here, who
was named Betsy Helm, and who was a half-blood Choctaw Indian. He mar-
ried my mother here In the Territory and they lived together for a nuoeiber of
years. When I was about 8 years old he and my mother separated, my father
taking me and moving to the Chlokasjiw coantry. while my mother remaiahig
in the Choctaw country. My father and I did not live there long before he
left on a business trip to Mobile, Ala., and he died there. I then went to live
with my mother over In the Choctaw country, she living at that time near
Atoka. After staying there a few years we moved down to Texas and I mar-
ried there. My husband was named Tom Cruce. * * ♦ Mr. Cruce died
and I married George Gamel, who is a white man and a citizen of the United
States. Both of these marriages occurred ip the SUite of Texas. After living
there for a few years my husband, George Gamel, and I moved over Into the
Indian Territory and located near old Cherokee Town.
My husband and I held cattle on Uie range for a long number of years, hold-
ing a good many near old White Bead Hill. I was recognized by the authorities
of the nation as an Indian, and was permitted to hold cattle as aforesaid; in
fact, I was considered as an Indian by everybody.
My mother, as I have stated, was a half-blood Choctaw, and I am a quarter-
blood Choctaw myself. I resemble an Indian so much that many people take
me for a half blood. Old Greenwood LeFlore, the noted Choctaw of Mlssls-
alji^l, was an uncle of my mother, and I have heard her speak of him often.
I dp not know whether I am on the roU of citizenship for the Choctaw Nation
or not, as I never before had any occasion to find out — having always beea
treated as an Indian by those who knew me.
Rube Ooins, a Choctaw Indian ; Dr. PavxMPS, 66 years old, and bom
and lived continuously in the nation; Edmond Chimity, a Creek
Indian, who had lived many years in the Choctaw Nation; Kittie
Burnett, a half-blood Choctaw Indian woman, who has lived in the
nation 47 years; W. J. Crockett, a business man of Purcell, all testified
corroborating the statements made by Kate Gamel. Each of these
witnesses had known her personally for from 20 to over 40 years.
October 9, 1896. Answer filed by nations, in words and figures as
follows :
The evidence does not show that the marriages In the family of claimants
were according to Choctaw law.
That there Is no evidence that this claim has ever been disputed by the Choc-
taw Nation.
December 1, 1896. Commission rendered its decision in words and
figures as follows : "Application denied."
Case appealed to United States court, southern district, Indian
Territory, where additional testimony was taken on behalf of claim
ants, counsel for nations being present and examining witnesses.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 529
January 23, 1897. The master in chancery filed with the court his
report, in words and figures as follows, to wit :
United Stiiteti Court, southern district, Indian Territory, at Ardmore.
Mrs. Kate Gamel v. Choctaw Nation. No. 100.
master's report.
I find the following purteuant facts to this application: That Betsy Helms
was one-half Choctaw Indian by blood» and for a number of years lived in the
Choctaw Nation near Atolta, where she died many years ago. Betsy Helm mar-
ried a white man, who emigrated to this country from Georgia, by the name of
Butledge, commonly called Col. John Kutledge. Of this union there was born
one child, the applicant, Mrs. Kate Gamel. Col. Rutleilge and his wife seikarateU
in the Choctaw Nation, when Col. Rutledge moved l<» the Chickasaw Nation.
At thitf time the applicant, Mrs. Gamel, was about s years old; that shortly
after the applicant located in the Chickasaw Nation Col. Rutledge went on a
business trip to Mobile. Ala., where he died; that the applicant continued to
reside in the Indian Territory in the Chickasaw Nation. The applicant then
nored to her mother's in the Choctaw Nation near Atoka, where she contlnue^I
to renide until she was about the age of 14, at which time she married a white
man named Tom Cruce. Soon after this marriage they moved to the State
of Texas, where Cruce died, leaving, surviving him by applicant, one chHd.
After the deiith of Cruce applicant married one George Gamel, a white man and
citizen of the United States. This marriage occurred in Texas before 1876 ; that
after this marriage a few years applicant and George Gamel moved to the Indian
Territory and located near Cherokee Town, Ind. T. After their removal here
they were recognized by the Indian authorities as Choctaw Indians. George
Gamel and Kate Gamel had the following children, to wit: Sallie, Carrie,
George, Henry, Minnie, and Daisy, bailie married I.. I*. Boseman In 1881 in
the Sttite of Texas, and had born the following cliildren: Kate, May, Frank,
Kinuej, and Ed. and reside near Pauls Valley, Ind. T. George married AIko
Rotenbury, a white woman, in 181)6; the other children, Henry, Minnie, aiwl
Daisy, are umnarried. I recommend that all the applicants be admitted to
enrollment except L. P. Boseman, who is a citizen of the Vnited States, and did
not marry according to the Indian laws. I recommend that he be denied enroll-
ment.
W. H. L. Campbell,
Master in Chancery.
December 21, 1897. Judgments were entered admitting to citizen-
ship in the Choctaw Nation the following persons : Mrs. Kate Gamo],
George Gamel, Henry Gamel, Minnie Gamel, Daisy (jamel, Mrs.
Came Witt (nee Gamel), Mrs. Sallie Boseman (nee" Gamel), Kato
Boseman, Frank Boseman, Kinnie Boseman, Ed Boseman, May Bose-
man, Alice Gamel, Onnie Heigle, Leo Heigle, and Dora Heigle.
Certified copies of said decrees are hereto attached and marked
'• Exhibits A-1 and A-2."
December 17, 1902. Judgment of United States court annulled by
decree of citizenship court m test case.
February 21, 1903. Record certified to citizenship court for trial
de novo.
May 3, 1904. Motion filed by counsel for claimants to dismiss caut<e
without prejudice. Motion overruled by court. Applicants declined
to submit further evidence. Attorneys for nations ask for judgment
on the record.
Copy of the proceedings in the court hereto attached and marked
" Exhibit B."
May 4, 1904. Opinion of court by Adams, chief judge, as follows:
The plaintiffs claim to be Choctaw Indians by blood, and as such entltletl to
citizenship and enrollment. I have carefully examined the record jn the case
and find no competent evidence to support the contention of plaintiffs that they
are Choctaw Indians. j
G0282— 13 34 ' ° 9'^'^^"^ ^^ V^OOglC
530 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
STATEMENT BY CX)ITNSEL rOR CLAIMANTS.
The only record evidence in this case before the citizenship court
was the evidence upon which the judgment of the United States court
was based. There was no testimony taken by the nations. Therefore
the proof offered by claimants of their Indian blood, descent, and
residence in the nation stood unchallenged. In 1896 the nations filed
their answer with the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes to the
petition for the enrollment of claimants, in which they state:
That there is no evidence that this claim has ever been disputed by the Choc-
taw Nation.
Thus, for the first time in all the proceedings, this claim was never
challenged by the nations until it reached the citizenship court.
Counsel submit that the following persons are clearly entitled to
enrollment as members of the Choctaw Nation : Kate Gamel, Gteorge
Gramel, Henr}' Gamel, Minnie Gamel, Daisy Gtonel, Mrs. Came
Witt (nee Gamel. now Fisher), Sallie Boseman, Kate Boseman,
Frank Boseman, Kinnie Boseman, Ed Boseman, May Boseman,
Alice Gamel, Annie Heigle, granddaughter of Kate Gamel by first
husband; I^o Heigle, grandson Kate Gamel; Dora Heigle, grand-
daughter Kate Gamel.
Minors bom prior to March 4, 1906, and for whom application
was duly made to the commission, but who were rejected because
their pai'ents had been adjudged by the citizenship court not to be
citizens of the nation: George Gamel, jr., Henry Gamel, Izetta
Gamel.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballikger & Lee,
Attorneys for Claimants.
Exhibit B.
In the Clioctaw nnd (Miiclvasaw citizenship court, flitting at Tishomingo. May
term, 1904.
Kate Gamel et al. v. Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. No. 4.
J. H. Mathews, attorney for plaintiffs.
Mansfield. McMurray & Cornish, for defendants.
Present and presiding: The Hons. Spencer B. Adams, chief judge, and Walter
L. Weaver and Henry S. Foote, associate judges.
May 3, 1904.
This day, this cause coming on to be heard, both plaintiffs and defendants
being represented by. counsel and both having announced ready for trial, the
following proceedings were had, to wit :
Mr. Norman. If the court please, the appearance of my name there is a mis-
take. T represented the parties In the court below, and they never employed me
to take an appeal here.
Mr. Mathkws. In case No. 4 I have a motion to dismiss. [Reads motion to
dismiss.!
Judge Adams. Motion overruled. \
Judge Adams. Any evidence?
Mr. Mathews. No. sir.
Judge Adams. You gentlemen anything to offer?
Mr. Cornish. Wc think that the nations are entitled to a judgment upon the
case at this time.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 531
Judge Adams. If you gentlemen don't want to offer any evidence, we will
write it up to-night.
Mr. Cornish. Yes, sir. We submit it on the record.
Judge Adams. J. H. Mathews, attorney for applicants, comes Into court and
flies a motion therein asking that the case be dismissed upon the ground that
this court has no jurisdiction thereof; whereupon the court overrules said
motion and requests of the attorney if he had any evidence he desired to ofifer
In this case; whereupon said attorney stated in open coui*t that he had no
evidence to introduce, and, the nations not introducing any evidence, the case
• is submitted on the record.
TBAN8CRI?T OF PBOCEEDINGS.
United States Court, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court, in the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms, at Ardmore, In the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1897.
Present; The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court
On the 21st day of December, 1897, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Kate Gamel et al. and Le Heigle et al. t?. The Choctaw Nation.
judgment.
At this time came on to be heard the master's report on the application of
Lee Heigle, appealed from the Commission of the United States to the Five
Civilized Tribes of Indians to be enrolled as members of the tribe of Choctaw
Indians > And it appearing to the court from the report of the master In chan-
cery filed herein, that Onnle Heigle, the wife of Lee Heigle, and their two chil-
dren, I-.eo and Dora Heigle, are members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by
blood, and that the said Lee Heigle is not a member of said tribe because he
did not marry his said wife in accordance with the laws of the Choctaw Nation.
It is therefore considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the said
petitioners, Onnle Heigle and her two children, Leo Heigle and Dora Heigle,
are members of the tribe of Choctaw Indians by blood and as such are entitled
to have their names enrolled as members of said tribe.
It is further adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendant, the Choc-
taw Nation, pay all costs in this behalf expended and incurred, for which
execution may issue.
It Is further ordered by the court that this judgment be certified by the
clerk to the Commission of the United States to the Five Civilized Tribes of
Indians for its -observance. To which judgment the defendant, the Choctaw
Nation, In open court duly excepted.
United States Court, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory aforesjild, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken, and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the same ap-
pears to me.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and afllxed the seal of
said court, at Ardmore, this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
[seal.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the ofl^cer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disi>08ition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of the judgment of the court, dated Dei^-ember 21, 1897, on file in this
office in the matter of the petition of Kate Gamel et al., for enrollment as mem-
bers of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. AUGELL,
Clerk in charge of Choctaw Records.
Dated at Muskogee, Okla., this 14th day of October, 1910. • j
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
532 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
TEANSCBJPT OF PBOCEEDIN08.
United States Court, Indian TeriHtory, Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory,
district, begun and had in the court rooms, at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Ix)rd 1S97.
Present: The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court
On the 21st day of December, 1897, being a regular day of said term of aaid
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Knte Gamel et al.. r. The Ohoctaw Nation. No. 109.
This cause coming on to be heard upon the master^s report and exceptions
thereto and the pleadings and evidence on this the 2l8t day of December, 1897,
and it appearing to the court from said master's report and the evidence In
this case that Mra Kate Gamel is a quarter-breed Choctaw Indian, being of
white and Indian blood, and tliat she nnd her children and grandchildren are
entitled to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation of Indians and to be enrolled as
citizens and members thereof, and that they are all residents of the Chickasaw
Nation, Ind. T.. and have duly complied with the law in all req;)ect8 in the
prosecution of this their application.
It is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the following-named
parties be and the same are hereby admitted to citizenship In the Choctr«w
Nation of Indians and ordered to be enrolled as citizens and members thereof,
to wit: Mrs. Kate Gamel, George Gamel, Henry Gamel, Minnie Gamel, Daisy
Gamel, Mrs. Carrie Witt (nfe Gamel), Mrs. Sallie Boseman (n€e Gamel). Kate
Boseman. Frank Boseman, KInnie Boseman, Ed Boseman. May Boseman, and
Alice Gamel.
And it Is further decreed that they possess an^ be permitted to enjoy and
exercise all the rights, privileges, and immunities of cltiz«is and members of
said Choctaw Nation of Indians.
Exceptions have been filed to that part of the master's report relating to
L. P. Boseman, and as to tills party the case stands open, so tiiat exertions
may hereafter be considered ; but as to all the other applicants and in all other
resi^ects said master's report is confirmed.
HoBKA TowNSiiHB, Ju4ge.
United States Court, Indian Territory, Southern Distriety ««;
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the forgoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the same ai^)ears
to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and afflxod" the seal of said
court, at Ardmore, this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertaining
to the eurollmeut of the members of tlie Choctaw, Chickasaw, Clierokee, Creek,
and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said tribes,
and tliat the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified copy
of the judgment of the court, dated December 21, 1897, on file in this ofllce In
the matter of the petition of Kate Gamel et al. for enrollment as memt>ers of
the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
J. Geo. Wright.
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records,
Dated at Muskogee, Okla., October 14, 1910.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVIIilZED TKIBOBB IN OKLAHOMA. 538
Mabt Huttman et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission, No. 1345. United States court, No. 137. Citi-
zenship court, No. 37-T.
September 9, 1896. Original application by Mary Hnffman lor the
enrollment of herself and 15 others as citizens of the Choctaw Nation
by blood and intermarriage under the provisions of the act of June
10, 1896. This application afterwards forwarded to the United
States court at Aramore, southern district.
December 8, 1896. Applicaticm rejected by the commission. Ap-
peal taken to the United States court for the southern district.
December 22, 1897. Judgment of United States court admitting a
portion of claimants to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation and deny-
ing others. Certifiexi copy of judgment is attached hereto marked
"Exhibit A."
December 17, 1902. Judgment of United States court vacated by
decree of citizendiip court in test case.
March 9, 1903. Kecord transmitted to citizenship court.
May 25, 1904. Motion by applicants in open court to dismiss over-
ruled by citizenship court. Judge Weaver stating:
This court feels that when a suit is brought In this court the duty is enjoined
upon them to determine the merits of the cause, and therefore a motion to
dismiss will not be entertained.
October 24, 1904. Hearing before the citizenship court and wit-
nesses on behalf of claimants examined. Frank Puscachummy states
that he is 59 year old ; that he is a brother of the principal applicant,
Mary Huffman; that their mother was a Choctaw woman and their
father a Chickasaw ; that he and his sister were bom on Allen Bayou,
in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T. ; that their parents died and that they
were taken to Texas wl^ile small ; that they remained in Texas until
nearly grown and then returned to the Indian Territory and con-
tinued to live in the Indian Territory ever since, holding land as
any other Choctaw or Chickasaw citizen.
The principal claimant, Mary Huffman, testified that she was 56
years of age; that her understanding was that she was bom on Allen
feayou, Choctaw Nation; that her father and mother died in the
In(iian Territory, and she was taken to Texas while very small; that
she lived there until she was grown and married ; that she returned
to the Indian Territory and has lived there 15 to 18 years; was alway?^
taught that she was a Choctaw Indian.
No evidence was submitted on behalf of the nations, and the above
statements stand uncontradicted.
November 28, 1904. Opinion of court by Adams, chief judge, as
follows :
The evidence shows that Mary Huffman and her brother. Franlc Pusca-
chiimmy, who are the principal applicants in this case, were living in the State
of Texas when they could first remember, where they remained until they were
grown, moving to Oklahoma about 1890 or 1891. and then moved to Indian
Territory, where they have resided since that time,n*eaching here about 1891.
The evidence consists of a lot of hearsay testimony, which I think unneceft-
gary to set out in this opinion. Suffice it to say that the evidence is totally
insufficient to establish the fact that the applicants, or any of them, are Indians.
Tbe application of applicants is therefore denied.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
634 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
June 22, 1906. Petition filed with the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes under department regulations of January 2, 1906,
for the enrollment of applicants as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
February 15, 1907. Decision of commissioner denying petition
on ground that it did not appear that any of the applicants had ever
been recognized or enrolled by the duly constituted authority of the
Choctaw Nation, and that therefore the action of the citizenship
court was final.
March 2, 1907. Action of commissioner approved by Secretary.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that all of said claimants
included in the judgment of the United States court, except J. W.
Huffman, are Choctaw Indians by blood and entitled to enrollment
as such, and that J. W. Huffman is entitled to be enrolled as a
member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by intermarriage. They
are: Mrs. Mary Huffman (n^e Puscachummy) , Frank Puscachummy,
Mrs. Victoria McClurg, daughter of Mary Huffman; Mrs. Lucy
Cude, daughter of Mary Huffman; Mrs. Susie Tucker, Mollie
Huffman, Daniel Huffman, Charles Florice, Susie McClurg, Lillie
McClurg, Henry McClurg. Hanev Wallace, J. W. Huffman, by inter-
marriage (husbJand of Mary Huftman).
The following are the children of those described above as admitted
by the United States court, for whose enrollment application was
duly made within the time prescribed by law: Yourland Florice,
Timothy J. Cude, Jack McClurg, Halley B. McClurg, Clayton Cude,
William Cude, Clarence Cude, Vera Cude.
The following newborn children are entitled to enrollment under
the act of April 20, 1906: Sybil McClurg, Otto McClurg, May
McClurg, Hazel Huffman, Beula Huffman, Hosea Huffman, Velma
Cude.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee,
Attorneys for Clwmants,
Transcript of Proceedings.
United States Coubt,
Indian Territory. Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the T'liUod States court In tlie Indian Territory,
district, begun and bad in the court rooms at Ardmore. In the Indian Territory^
on the 15th day of November, In the year of our Lord 3897.
Present. The Hon. Ilosea Townsend, judge of said court.
On the 22d day of December, 1897, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceeiUngs had were the following, to wit :
Mrs. Mai'y Huffman et al. v. Choctaw Nation.
On this the 22d day of December, A. D. 1897, the above-entitled action came
before the court for a confirmation of the master's report herein filed on the
Digitized by V^OOQIC
vrm CIVILIZED tribes in Oklahoma. 536
23d day of June, A. D. 1897, which report, after styling the action, was as
follows:
To the Hon. C. B. Kilgore, Judge of said court : I find the following facts In
this case:
That Mary Huffman and other petitioners herein named filed their applica-
tion In due form and In due time with the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes from the United States and that said application was by said commission
rejected.
That the applicants herein claim to be the descendants of Mrs. Mary Huffman
(n^ Puscochummy), save the applicant, Frank Puscochummy, who claims to be
a brother of Mrs. Mary Huffman (n^ Puscochummy), and the applicants, J. W.
Huffman. O. W. McClurg, G. W. Cude, and Sam Tucker, who claims by inter-
marriage.
I find that Mrs. Mary Huffman (n^ Puscochummy) and Frank Puscochummy
are brother and sister and members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by blood.
That Mrs. Mary Huffman (n6e Puscochummy) was duly and legally married
to J. W. Huffman, a citizen of the United States and a white man, whom I find
to be a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by marriage.
I find that Mrs. Victoria McClurg (nee Huffman), Lucy Cude. (nf^e Huff-
man), Susie Tucker (n6e Huffman), Daniel Huffman. Mollie Huffman to be
the legitimate issue of J. W. and Mrs. Mary Huffman and members of the
Choctaw Tribe of Indians by blood.
I find that Charles Florice is a son of Mrs.. J. W. Huffman (n6e Puscochummy),
by her former husband, Sam Florice, deceased, and that he is a member of the
Choctaw Tribe of Indians by blood.
I find that O. W. McClurg, a white man and a citizen of the United States,
was married to Mrs. Victoria McClurg (n6e Huffman), but not in compliance
with the Indian laws, and I further find that Susie McClurg, Lillie McClurg,
and Henry McClurg are the legitimate children of O. W. McClurg and Mrs.
Victoria McClurg. and that they are the grandchildren of Mrs. .Mary Huffman
and J. W. Huffman, they being members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by
blood.
I find that Henry Wallace is a son of Mrs. Victoria McClurg by a former
husband, Henry Wallace, deceased, and a grandson of Mrs. Mary and J. W.
Huffman, he, therefore, being a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by
blood.
I find that G. W. Cude, a white man and a citizen of the United Slates, was
married to Lucy Cude (n6e Huffman), but not in compliance with the Indian
laws.
That Sam Tucker, was a white man and a citizen of the United States, was
married to Susie Tucker (n6e Huffman), but not in compliance with the Indian
I therefore recommend that Mrs. Mary Huffman (n^e Puscochummy), Frank
Puscochummy, Mrs. Victoria McClurg, Mrs. Lucy Cude, Mrs. Susie Tucker,
Mollie Huffman, Daniel Huffman, Charles Florice, Susie McC^lnrg, Lillie
McClurg, Henry McClurg. and Hancy Wallace nre meml>ersof the Choctaw Tribe
of Indians by blood and recommend that they be enrolled as such. That J. W.
Huffman is a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by intermarriage and
recommend that he be enrolled as such.
I find that O. W. McClurg, G. W. Cude, and Sam Tucker are not menil>ers of
the Choctaw Tribe of Indians and recommend that they be denied citizenship in
said nation.
W. H. L. Campbell.
Master in Chancery.
It appearing to the court tliat said report has not been excepted to by the
defendants herein, and that the facts set forth are true, the report of the master
In chancerv is hereby in all things confirmed by the court. It is therefore
ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the report of the master be, and is in all
things, confirmed. ^, ^
It is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged that Mrs. Mary Huffman (nee
Puscochummy), Frank Puscochummy, Mrs. Victoria McClurg, Mrs. LUcy Cude,
Mrs. Susie Tucker, Mollie Huffman, Daniel Huffman, Charles Florice, Susie
McClurg, Lillie McClurg, Henry McClurg, and Haney Wallace be enrolled as
members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by blood and that J. W. Huffman be
enrolled as a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by intermarriage.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
536 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOBTA
That O. W. MoClurg, G. W. Cude, and Sam Tucker be denied the right to be
enrolled iis members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the day and year above
written.
IIOSEA TOWNSEND, JudgC.
United States Coubt,
Indian Territory, Southern District, 88:
I, C. M. Campbell, cleric of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the same appeam
to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
court at Ardmore this 12th day of March, A .D. 1908.
(seal. 1 C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
By N. H. McCoy, Deputy.
W. A. Clark et al., Choctaws.
Charles M. Clark, one of the applicants herein, was at Sulphur,
Okla., when the select committee of the House was there in August,
1910, and saw the individual members of the committee and ex-
plained the case of his family to them. The members of that com-
mittee will doubtless remember him and that he has the appearance
of being a half-breed, showing strongly his Indian blood.
RECORD.
October 28, 1896. Mosos C. Clark applied to the Choctaw Council
for the admission of himself and family as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation by blood.
Note. — This application was filed after the expiration of the time
fixed by Congress in the act of June 10, 1896, and the council there-
fore had no jurisdiction.
October 29, 1896. Citizenship committee reported case adversely
for want of sufficient evidence.
October — , 1896. Resolution passed council rejecting application.
From this decision appeal was taken to the United States court for
the central district of Indian Territory.
August 26, 1897. Decision of United States court dismissing cause
for want of jurisdiction because application had not been made to
council within the time fixed by the act of June 10, 1896.
^ 1899. M. C. Clark, father of W. A. Clark, appeared
before Commissioner McKennon at McAlester and because his name
did not appear on the tribal roll was refused enrollment without
examination.
M. C. Clark and all of his children, and their children, appeared
before the commission at Colbert, Ind. T., and again applied for
enrollment. The applicants were examined as to whether their
names appeared on tribal rolls, their blood, descent, and residence.
M. C. Clark testified that all the applicants were his children and
grandchildren; that he was one-fourth Choctaw; that he was bom
on the road from Mississippi to Georgia ; that his father was Jeffer-
son Clark, a white man, and his mother was Patsey Harkins, a half-
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVIblZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 587
blood Choctarw; Uiat he bad lived in the Choctaw Nation lor 18
years.
May 21, 1902. Before decision on the above application all the
applicants in this case applied for recognition as Mississippi Choc-
taws, claiming descent from a fourteenth article beneficiary under
the treatv of 1830.
December 27, 1902. Decision of commissioner holding proof in-
suflBcient to identify applicants as Mississippi Choctaws.
June 25, 1906. Motion filed to reopen case and have rights of
parties as resident Choctaws adjudicated under opinion of Assistant
Attorney General of February 19, 1906, in the case of J. S. Long.
The motion set out that the grandfather of M. C. Clark, John
Harkins, a full-blood Choctaw, came to the Choctaw Nation from the
Choctaw reservation in Mississippi in 1848, drew annuity money that
year and returned to Mississippi for his family, where he was taken
sick and died ; that his name, together with the name of his brother,
George W. Harkins, appeared on the annuity roll of 1848, then in
the possession of the Auditor for the Department of the Interior, in
the Treasury Department ; that on the preceding roll for the vear
1847 and on the succeeding roll of 1849 appeared the name of his
brother, George W. Harkins.
Note. — George W. Harkins was subsequently principal chief of
the Choctaw Nation.
December 26, 1906. Decision of Secretary of the Interior deny-
ing motion, on the ground that the motion did not set up tribal
enrollment of applicants since moving to the Choctaw Nation, and
that the facts alleged, if true, were not sufficient to entitle them to
enrollment.
Note. — Opinion in Long case held such enrollment unnecessary.
January 27, 1907. Decision of commissioner dismissing original
application for enrollment of M. C. Clark because of death prior to
September 25, 1902.
There was no appearance on behalf of the nations at any of the
proceedings had in this case, and the evidence of Choctaw blood and
continuous residence in the Choctaw Nation since 1882 stands
undisputed.
The claimants, as shown by the decision of the commission Decem-
ber 27, 1902, are: William A. Clark, Nancy L. Clark, Asbery B.
Clark, John H. Clark, James A. Clark, Etter E. Clark, Wesley C.
Clark, Nettie L. Clark, Willie H. Clark, Mary Winford, Virgil Win-
ford, Jesse Winford, Argie Winford, Rose May Hunter, Lola Hunter,
Charles M. Clark, Willie D. Clark, James B. Clark, James Cass
Clark, Weslev C. (^lark second. Earnest W. Clark, Vernon A. Clark.
Arthur R. Cfark, Mattie L. Clark, Ida Clark, Thomas E. Clark, and
Jesse F. Clark.
They should be enrolled. Copy of court proceedings containing
depositions attached.
Kespectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
638 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
In the Uuited States court for tbe central judicial district of the Indian
Territory.
Moses C. Clark et al., plaintiffs, t*. The Cliuctaw Nation, defendants.
AQBEEMENT OF COUNSEL.
Whereas the records or files in the above-styled cause have been burned and
destroyed, and whereas said record or files contained the following matters:
First. Petition for appeal.
Second. Proof of notice of appeal.
Third. Transcript of council proceedings, containing proceedings of cltlzeB-
ship committee and their report to council and affidavits of Samuel Perry,
Orange Collius, Jennie Nelson, Amy Beams, and Willis Evins, and resolution
l>assed by council.
Fourth. Answer or demurrer filed by defendants February 10, 1897.
Fifth. Agreements of counsel to take depositions of Jackson Battiste, Gllbtft
Cooi>er. Nancy Clark. Jennie Nelson, Amy Beams, Orange Collins, Willis Bvins,
and Rebecca Evins, subject to holding of the court on the right of parties to
lake additional evidence.
Sixth. Depositions of Jackson Battlste. Gilbert Cooper, Rebecca EMns, Nancy
Clark. Jennie Nelson. Amy Beams, Willis Evins, Orange Collins, and Samad
Perry.
Seventh. Two motions to allow taking of additional evidence.
Eighth. Defendants' answer, filed April 14, 1897.
Ninth. Demurrer to answer, filed April 15, 1897.
Now. therefore, it Is hereby agreed, admitted, and conceded by Stnart,
Gordon Ac Halley, counsel for the defendants, and W. L. Richard, W. D. Colyar,
and W. A. Durant, counsel for the plaintiffs, that concerning —
First. Item the first of said record, the substituted petition of 41ie plaintiffs
hereto attached, shall stand and be filed in lieu and stead of the original.
Second. That concerning item the second of said record, the notice having
been had In accord with the law and rulings of the court and the defendants
having answered and demurred for appearance, substituted proof of notice is
hereby waived.
Third. That concerning item the third of said record, the substituted copies
of the petitions, minutes of the citizenship committee and their report to coun-
cil, and the resolution passed by council filed herewith on the twenty-first,
twentj^-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth pages
of the substituted record herewith, shall be filed and stand In lieu and stead of
the original record.
Fourth. That concerning item the fourth of said record the same may be
substituted by the defendants.
Fifth. That concerning item the fifth of said record, the same being agree-
men's of counsel for the taking of depositions at Tushka, Homa, and at Kiowa,
Ind. T.. upon days therein named, subject to the ruling of the court upon the
right of parties to take new evidence, saving any and all rights to the defend-
ants, that Is. said agreements were not to waive the defendants' right to plead
or raise the question of Jurisdiction of this court, and said deiwsitions having
been duly taken and published, and the court having ruled that parties may
have trial de novo and introduce new evidence, and the plaintiffs agreeing that
same shall not be taken as a waiver of their, the defendants', rights on the
question of jurisdiction herein, the substitution of said agreements Is hereby
waived, this clause of this agreement to stand In lieu and stead thereof.
Sixth. That concerning item the sixth of said record, the same including the
depositions of Jackson Battlste, Gilbert Cooper, Samuel Perry, Orange Collins,
Amy Beams, Nancy Clark, Jennie Nelson, Willis Evins, and Rebecca Evins.
duly taken and filed and published, the time being short in which to retake
said depositions, and a considerable expense attending the retaking thereof, and
the substance thereof appearing from the copies of cerlaln affidavits and
appendices filed and set out herewith on pages 7 to 20, inclusive, of substituted
record hereto attached, it Is hereby agreed, conceded, and admitted that the
matters and facis set out on said pages of said substituted record shall he
filed and stand in lieu and stead of the original record or depositions ak afore-
said, and shall stand as the facts and evidence In support of the plaintiffs'
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 539
claim herein the same as If duly taken or retaken by deposition according to
the law.
Seventh. That concerning Item the seventh of said record, it is hereby agreed
that the substitution of motion to allow taking of new evidence is hereby
waived and dlsi^ensed with.
Eighth. That concerning item the eighth of said record, it is hereby agreed
that the defendants may substitute the same, being an answer.
Ninth. That concerning item the ninth of said record, the plaintiflfs' substitute
appearing on page 6 of tlie substituted record herewith, shall be filed and stand
In lieu and stead thereof.
It being hereby agreed that this stipulation shall be a iiart of snid substituted
record hereto attached, and that hereon this cause shall proceed as upon the
original record as herein substituted.
It Is further agreed that Choctaw Nation have until the 15th of August to
take testimony in this cause.
Witness our hands this the 3d day of July, 1897.
W. D. COLYAB,
W. L. Richard,
W. A. DUBANT,
Attorneys far Moses C. Clark et al.. Plaintiffs.
Attorneys for the Choctaw Nation, Defendants.
The above agreement is assented to, with the exception that the affidavits
of Samuel Perry and Willis Evins used before Choctaw Council are not admit-
ted as evidence.
Stuabt, Gordon & Hailey,
For Choctaw Nation.
deposition of bebecca evins.
Rebecca Evins, being first duly sworn, on her oath states that she resides near
Kiowa. Ind. T. Thnt she is between 76 and 80 years old. That she !s acquainted
with Moses C. Clark nnd his wife, Nancy Clark: have known Nancy Clark from
her earliest childhood; have known Moses C. Clark *?iiKe the year 1S18 or 1S49.
That he was then about 14 years old and living with his father and mother. His
father*s name was Thomas J. Clark, his mother's name was Patsy Clark; they
were then living In the northeast part of the State of Georgia, near Tennessee
and North Carolina. Moses C. Clark, aforesaid, the plaintiff, was married in
1853 to his present living wife, Nancy Clark. Patsy Clark, aforesaid, was recog-
nized and reputed by all who knew her throujrhont the communhy where she
lived as a Choctaw Indian of more than half Choctaw Indian blood. Her name
was Patsy Harklns before she married. Her father visited her often while
they lived In northeast Georgia; his name was John Harklns; Jje was a Choc-
taw Indian and showed plainly to be of Indian blood. The last time he visited
the said Patsy Clark he was preparing to go to the Indian Territory ; this was
In 1858 or 18.59. He at that time expressed his intention of going out to the
new nation, the present Choctaw Nation, preparatory to moving there and
taking all his children with him. He claimed Patsy Harklns as his daughter by
his first wife, Nancy Harklns. He never visited them any more after that time.
After Moses C. Clark was married In 1853 he and his wife lived together In
northeast Georgia, near his mother. Patsy Harklns, until about 1804, when
Moses C. Clark and his family and the deponent and her husband, Willis Evins,
moved to Kentucky, leaving Patsy Clark and T. J. Clark on the old home place
in northeast Georgia.
^V^lile living In wedlock with Moses C. Clark as husband and wife he has
had bom to him of his said wife, Nancy Clark, the following children, at the
birth of each one of which the deponent was present: W. A. Clark, aged 43
years; Jemima Angelina Clark (now Meeler), aged 41 years; J. H. Clark, aged
89 years; Mary Ann Clark (now Wlnniford). aged 37 years; Charley Clark,
aged 35 years; James B. Clark, aged 33 years; Wesley Clark, aged 31 years;
Ellen Jones Clark, aged 28 years; Irvin Clark, aged 23 yeai-s.
That all of said children, together with their mother and father, Moses C.
Clark, are now living in the Choctaw Nation.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
640 FIVE CJIVILIZED TBIBE8 IN OKLAHOMA.
That Mo8e» C. Clark and all of said cWldren have lived in the Ohoftaw
Nation for about 11 years; that W. A. Clark has lived here longer; that W. A-
Clark married Maggie Mowdy, hts present living wife, and while living In hiw-
ful wedlock with her as hnsband and wife have had the following children bom
to them of the said wife: First, Lether Clark, agdd 14 years, and Affcerry
Clark, aged 31 years, now living with their father in Dnrant, Ind. T.
That J. H. ClrtPk, aforesaici, ham four children living with him at Durairt,
Ind. T.. bom to him by his wife, Alice Clark, while living with her in lawfnl
wedlock as husband and wife,xnamely : James Andy Clark, aged 12 years; Etta
Clark, aged 10 years ; Westley Clark, aged 8 years ; Nettie Clark, aged 5 years.
That Mary Ann Winnlford (n^ Clark) has living with them near IMirant
^ght children bora of her while living In lawful wedlock with her husband
Robert Winnlford. namely: Haltie Winnlford. aged 20 years; Robert WlnnlfottJ,
aged 17 years; Charles Winniford. aged 14 years; Minnie Winnlford, aged 11
years; Mackey Winnlford, aged 9 years; Evertt Winnlford, aged 6 years; Jessie
Winnlford, aged 10 months.
That Charley Clark, aforesaid, has one child now living with him bora to
him by his wife, Maggie Clark, while living with her as husband and wife In
lawful wedlock, namely, Willie Clark, aged 8 years.
That Westley Clark, aforesaid, has three children, now living with him near
Durant. born to him by his wife, Emma Clark, while living with her in lawful
wedlock, namely: Earnest W. Clark, aged 2i years; Vertiie A. Clark, aged IJ
years ; Arthur Clark, aged 2 months.
Rebecca Evins.
Subscribed and sworn before —
Blackwell, Notary Public.
(Certificate: Deposition of Nancy Clark, wife of Moses C. Clark, same as
above.)
State of Choctaw NatiOxV, County of Wade:
Personally appeared before me, a not*iry public in the central division of the
United States court in the Indian Territory. Gilbert Coor)er, a Choctaw Indian
by blood, and on oath deposes and says: '* I am 74 years of age, to the best of
my knowledee.*' Afflnnt states that he was well acquainted with John Harkius
and knows that the said John Harkins was a Choctaw India a by blood. Affiant
further states that he was well acquainted with Nancy Gardner and knows that
she was a Chootaw Indian by blood before she was married to the said John
Ilarkins. AHiant further states that he was well acquainted with Patsy
Harkins, the daughter of John and Nancy Harkins. Affiant further states that
he knew Thomas Jefferson Clark and knows that he was the lawful husband
of the said Patsy Harkins, the daughter of the said John Harkins. Affiant fur-
ther states that he knew the sjiid Patsy Harkins while she attended school at
Mayhne Choctaw School, in the State of Mississippi. Affiant further states that
the said John Harkins came to this nation from the State of Mississippi from the
old nation and drawed his annuity money at old Fort Tovvson, near the town
of Doakvllle.
Gilbert Cooper,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 90th day of November, 1S96.
F. M. Ft7U-ER, Notary Public,
My commission expires February 13, 1900.
In deposition this affiant also states that he is one-half Choctaw Indian of
Choctaw Indian blood, a recognized resident citizen of the Choctaw Nation by
blood; that Nancy Harkins (n^ Gardner), the wife of John Harkins, who w»«
the father of Patsy Harkins. was over one-half Choctaw Indian of Choctaw
Indian blood, and that John Harkins was one-half Choctaw Indian by blood;
that the said John Harkins came to this country and registered and drew an-
nuity or jnoney as a Choctaw Indian in the y«ar 1858 or 1859 thereabout.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIV® OIVIUZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 541
/
State of Choctaw Nation, County of Wade:
Personally appeared before me, a notary public In the central division of the
United States court In the Indian Territory, Jackson Battlast, a Choctaw In-
dian by blood, and on oath deposes and says: ** I am 88 years of age, and I was
well acquainted with John Harkins,'* and knows that the said John Harkina
was a Choctaw Indian by blood. Affiant further states that he was well ac-
QoalBted with Nancy Gardner, and knows that she was a Choctaw Indian by
Ueod before she married to tha said John Harkins. Affiant further states that
he was well acquainted with Patsy Harkins, the daughter of John and Nancy
Harkins. Affiant further states that he knew Thomas Jefferson Clark and
knows that he was the lawful husband of the said Patsy Harkins, the daughter
of the said John Harkins. Affiant further states that he knew the said Patsy
Harkins while she attended school at Mayhue Choctaw School in the State of
Mississippi. Affiant further states that the said John Harkins came to this
Nation from the State of Mississippi from the said natioa and drawed his
annuity money at old Fort Towson, near the town of Doaksville. Affiant fur-
ther states that him and Gilbert Cooper was both present at the October term
of the Choctaw council held at the national capitol of the Choctaw Nation in
October, 1896. to testify to the blood of Patsy Harkins being a Choctaw Indian
by blood, and her case was objected and refused to be heard and referred the
ease.
Jackson (his x mark) Battiast.
Witness :
M. A. FULLEB.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 30th day of November, 1806.
[SKAL.] F. M. Fuller, Notary Public.
My commission expires February 13, 1900.
In deposition affiant states that he is seven-eighths Choctaw Indian by blood
and one-eighth French ; a resident and recognized citizen of the Choctaw Nation
by blood. That John Harkins was the grandfather of Moses C. Clark and was
one-half Choctaw Indian by blood, and that Nancy (Gardner) Harkins was the
grandmother of Moses C. Clark and was over one-half Choctaw Indian by blood,
and that he knows Mosas C. Clark and his older brother, William Clark, were
both children of Patsy Harkins, who was the diiughter of the said Jbkn Harkins
and Nancy Harkins (n^ Gardner), and that Moses C. Clark is a Choctaw In-
dian by blood.
In the United States Court for the Central Judicial District, Indian Territory.
Moses C. Clark et all., plaintiffs, v. The Choctaw Nation, defendants.
NOTICE to take DEPOSITIONS.
To the Clwctaw Nation, the above-named defendants, or their attomeyn,
Stewart t Gordon <$ Hailey:
You are hereby notified that depositions of witnesses to be read in evidence
In the above-entitled cause on the part of the plaintiff will be taken in the
office of W. A. Durant, in the town of Durant, Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., on
the 12th day of July, 1897, between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon
and 6 o'clock in the afternoon, and that the taking of said depositions, if not
completed on that day. will be continued from day to day at the same place
and between the same hours until completed.
W. L. Richard,
W. D. COLYAB,
W. A. Durant,
Attorneys for the Plaintiff, Moses D. Clark.
(Indorsed on back: Moses C. Clark et al.. P.. r. The Choctaw Nation, Def.
Notice to take depositions. Served within notice by delivering a true copy to
James Gordon, of the firm of Stuart, Gordon & Hailey. on this 8 day of July,
*97, at 8.20 a. m. J. P. Grady, V. S. Marshal, by G. L. Miller.)
My name is Henry Harrison. I reside near Durant. Ind. T. I do not know
my exact age. I am somewhere between 00 and 70 years old. I was bora in
Digitized by V^OOQIC
542 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Mississippi, amongst the Choctaw Indians. My father was a full-blood Choctaw
Indian. I was raised among the Choctaw Indians and have always liTed
among them, formerly in Mississippi and later in the Indian Territory. I was
acquainted with John Harkins in Mississippi, and lived neighbor to him. I
was acquainted with the wife of John Harkins also. Her name was Nancy
Harkins. Her maiden name was Nancy Gardner. They were both Choctaw
Indians by blood. Nancy Ilarkins's (n6e Gardner]^ parents lived in the same
neighborhood. They were Choctaw Indians by blood. When I moved from
Mississippi to this country John Harkins was still living in Mississippi among
other Mississippi Choctaws who had not removed to the Indian Territory.
Henky (his X mark) Habrisoic.
Witnesses :
E. S. Whitelaw,
W. D. COLYAB.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of July, 1897.
[SEAL.] W. L. Poole, Notary Public.
My name is Willis Ivens. I reside near Kiowa, in the Indian Territory. I
don't know my exact age, but am about 65 years old. I am well acquainted
with Moses C. Clark, the plaintiff, and have known him since in the fortiee.
I think it was about 1848 when I got acquainted with him. He was then liv-
ing with his father and mother at their home, where he continued to reside
till about 1852 or 1853, when he married his present living wife, Nancy Claik
(n^ Allen), with whom he has continuously resided as husband till the
present time. Moses C. Clark had one brother, older than himself. Th€ir
mother's name — that is, the mother of Moses C. Clark and his brother — was
Patsey Clark (n§e Harkins). Their father's name was Thomas J. Clark. I
was closely and intimately acquainted with their father and mother aforesaid
as a friend and neighbor from about 1848 till about 1860, and met them off
and on until they died. Their deaths occurred 7 and 14 years ago.
Moses C. Clark and I grew up together and have always lived closely asso-
ciated with each other. During the time that elapsed between 1848 and 1860
i spe^l a great deal of time at the house of his father and mother. I have
frequently heard them speak of Moses C. Clark as their own son, being th^r
second boy. I have heard them state time and again, as a matter of family
history, that Patsey Clark's parents and grandparents on both sides were
Choctaw Indians by blood. I was well acquainted with Patsey Clark's father.
His name was John Harkins. He was a Choctaw Indian by blood, and was
generally reputed by all In that country to be a one-half Choctaw Indian by
blood. He always stated that his parents were Choctaw Indians by blood.
He frequently visited his daughter, Patsey Clark, at which times I have heard
his talk over family matters and family history with her and her family. He
always claimed her as his own child by his wife, Nancy Harkins, and that his
said wife, Nancy Harkins, was at least one-half Choctaw Indian by blood. He
often spotae of Polly Harkins as being a full Ulster of Patsey Harkins.
Moses Clark and his wife, Nancy Clark, have nine children, viz: W. A.
Clark, Angeline Meeler (n^ Clark), J. H. Clark, Mary Ann Winfred (n^
Clark), C. M. Clark, James B. Clark, Ellen Jones (n^ Clark), Wesley dark,
and Irvin Clark. Moses C. Clark and all the above-named children are now
living in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., and have lived in said nation for the
last 14 years. W. A. Clark has lived in the Choctaw Nation for about 20 years.
Willis (his x mark) Ivins.
Witnesses :
W. D. COLYAB,
J. J. Deiss.
Suliscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of July, 1897.
[SEAL.] W. L. Poole, Notary Public,
At the instance of plaintiff, taking these depositions is continued till the 13th
day of July, 1897, on account of absence of witness, Jonas Frazier, to be then
resumed at the same place and between the same hours named in the captioa
[SEAL.] W. L. PooLE, Notary Public,
DuHANT, Ind. T., July IS, 1897.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 543
Taking of depositions in this cause is continued as before, and for same
reasons, to be resumed at the same place and between the same hours as named
in the caption on the 14th day of July, 1897.
• [SEAL.] W. L. Poole, Notary Public.
. DUBANT, IND. T., July U, 1897.
Taking of depositions In this cause is continued as before, and for same
reasons, to be resumed at same place, between same hours as named in the
caption, July 15, 1897.
[SEAL.] W. L. Poole, yotary Public.
DUBANT, iND. T., July 15, 1897.
Taking depositions in this cause is continued as before, and for same reasons,
to be resumed at same place and between the same hours as named in caption,
July 16, 1897.
[SEAL.] • W. L. Poole, Notary Public.
United States of Abcebica,
Central District of the Indian Territory.
I, W. L. Poole, a duly appointed and qualified notary public, within and for
the central Judicial district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify that the
foregoing depositions of Henry Harrison and Willis Ivens were taken before
me and were read to and subscribed by them in my presence at the time and
place and in the action mentioned in the caption, the said Henry Harrison and
Willis Ivens having been first sworn by me that the evidence they should give in
the action should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and
that their statements were reduced to writing by me in their presence, the
I^aintifF appearing In person and by W. L. Richards, his attorney, being present
at the examination, and after which the taking of the said depositions in this
cause was continued to be resumed at the same place from day to day between
the same hours on account of absence of witness.
Given under my hand and seal at Durant, Ind. T., within the central judicial
district of the Indian Territory, this 12th day of July, 1897.
[SEAL.] W. L. Poole, Notary Public Aforc.'^aid.
Taking of depositions having been continued on account of absence of wit-
ness, Jonas Frazier, it is now resumed on this the 16th day of July, 1897, in
the place named in the caption, at the hour of 3 o'clock p. m., the witness Jonas
Prazler appearing. He being unable to speak English, Joseph Nelson is sworn
as interpreter as per oath and affidavit following :
AFFIDAVIT.
I, Joseph Nelson, do solemnly swear that I will truly Interpret and render
hi English all the statements made by Jonas Frazler, the witness In the en use
now pending, wherein Moses C. Clark et al. are plaintiffs and the Choctaw
Nation are defendants, to W. L. Poole, notary public, before whom the deposi-
tion of the witness Jonas Frazier Is taken, and will truly Interpret to him the
oath administered by said notary public.
Joseph E. Nelson.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of July. 1897.
[SEAL.] . W. L. Poole, Notary Public.
My name is Jonas Frnzler. I reside near Caddo. Ind. T. I anr S8 years
old. I am a full-blood Choctaw Indian and a recognized citizen of the Choctaw
Nation. I came to the Indian Territory from Mississippi about the year 1832.
I lived in Mississippi about 5 miles west of " Old Mayhew " schoolhonse. This
was a Choctaw school where only Choctaws were admitted as pupils. I knew,
one John Harkins in the old nation in Mississippi, and was well acquainted
with him from the time I was a little boy till I left Mississippi. John Harkins
lived near enough to Mayhew School to send his girls to school there. I knew
all his family. His wife was of the Gradner family of Choctaws and was an
Indian by blood. John Harkins himself was a half-blood Choctaw Indian.
He and his wife had two children, both girls. Their names were Polly and
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
544 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Patsy Harkins. Patsy Harkiiui was abont the same age as myself. Both girls
attended school at Mayhew School. Patsy Harkins was married when she was
about 16 years old to' Thomas J. Clark. They were married at a big preaching
or meeting between Mayhew School and the Tombigbee River. The man who "
married them was a minister of the gospel named Carr. This man Carr and
two other preachers, named Kingsbury and Byington, were holding this meeting.
When I left Mississippi the above-named Thomas J. Clark and Patsy Clarfc
had two children ; the youngest one was just a baby. John Harkins aforesaid
was still living in Mississippi when I left there.
Jonas (his z mark) Fbazieb.
Witnesses:
J. L. Wilson.
A. M. Klein HOfVER.
Subscribed and sworn to before m« this 16th day of July, 1807.
[SEAL.] W. L. Poole, Notary Puhlie.
Joseph Nelson, having been first duly sworn, on his oath states: The above
deposition of Jonas Frazler is a true rendition in English of the statements of
Jonas Prazler, the witness, and that he read and interpreted the same to tlie
said witness, Jonas Frazler, before he signed the same, and administered the
oath or rendered in the Choctaw language the oath administered by the notary
public, W. L. Poole.
Joseph E. Nelson.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 16th day of July, 1897.
[SEAL.1 W. L. Poole, Notary Public.
United States of America,
Central District of the Indian Territory:
I, W. L. Poole, a duly apiK)inted and qualified notary public, within and for
the central Judicial district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify that the
foregoing deix)sitlon of Jonas Frazier was taken before me and was read to
and subscribed to them In my presence at the time and place, and in the actkm
mentioned in the caption, the said Jonas Frazier having been fii-st sworn by me
that the evidence they should give in the action should be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, and that their statements were reduced to
writing by me In their presence, the plaintiff in person and by W. L. Richards^
his attorney, being present at the examination.
Given under my hand and seal at Durant, Ind. T., within the central Judicial
district of the Indian Territory, this 16th day of July, 1897.
[seal.] W. L. Pochjs,
Notary Public Afore8ai4.
Indorsed on back : No. 4. Moses C. Clark et al. v. Choctaw Nation. Deposi*
tion. Filed July 17, 1897. E. J. Fannin, clerk.
In the matter of claim of M. C. Clark et al. for citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation.
Orange Collins, after being duly sworn. dei)oses and says: His age is 72
years; his post oflSce. Caddo, Ind. T. That he is well acquainted with M. C.
Clark and. family, and also that he lived in Mississippi when he was a boy
17 or 18 years of age. That he knew John Harkins in Mississippi and knew
that he was a Choctaw by blood, and at least a half-breed. That he knew one
Patsy Harkins in Mississippi when she was a girl, and knew that she was the
daughter of John Harkins, spoken of above, and knew that she was educated
at Mayhew College and married one T. J. Clark.
Obanqe (his X mark) Clark.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of October, 1896.
[seal.] ^- ^ FOLSOM,
Clerk County and Probate Court, Blue County, Ind. T.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
PIVE C5IVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 545
In the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Central District, at South
McAlester.
BEPOBT OF SPECIAL MASTER IN CHANCERY.
Moses C. Clark et al., plaintiffs, i'. The Choctaw Nation, defendant.
This case was duly and i^gularly filed before the Choctaw Cx)uncil October 28,
1886, plaintiffs claiming citizenship as Choctaws by blood. The Choctaw Coun-
cil passed a bill rejecting applicants on the 3d day of November, 1896, from
which decision of the Choctaw Council the plaintiffs apiietiled on the 30th day
of December, 1896, to which appeal the defendant demurred on February 10,
1897, which demurrer being overi;ruled the defendant answered April 14, 1897.
August 24, 1897, claimants filed motion to strike out all of the answer except
that portion which was the general denial. Motion sustained by the court.
I find from the evidence that Moses C. Clark, who styles this case and is
applicant, father and grandfather of applicants, is a one-quarter blood Choctaw
Indian.
That the said Moses C. Clark and his descendants are descendants of John
Harkins and Nancy Harkins, his wife, Mississippi Ch<K»tnw8, who were mem-
bers of the Choctaw Tribe or Nation In 1830 at the time of the treaty of the
United States with the Choctaw Nation and the patent of the Choctaw Nation,
Ind. T., by the Government of the United State.« to the Choctaw Tribe or Nation
of Indians. That said John Harkins and his wife. Nancy Harkins, were
half-breed Choctaw Indians. That the mother of Moses C. Clark was the
daughter of said John Harkins and Nancy Harkins, and consequently a half-
breed Choctaw Indian. That the father of said Moses C. (^lark was a white
man. That Moses C. Clark and all of his children except W. A. Clark, to wit,
Angellne Meeler (n6e Clark), J. H. Clark, Mary Ann Winford (n^ Clark),
Charles M. Clark, James B. Clark, Ellen Jones (n^e Clark). Wesley Clark, and
Irvin Clark, all came to the present Choctaw Nation. Ind. T.. for the first and
only time about 14 years ago; that W. A. Clark, son of said Moses C. Clark,
came to the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., abom 20 years ajco: that all of said appli-
cants and their minor children have continuously resided here since their first
and only removal to the Choctaw Nation of their birth: that the following are
the respective names and ages ol the said Moses C. Clark and descendants,
applicants in this case: Moses C. Clark, aged 65 years, and children, to wit,
W. A. Clark, aged 43; Angelina Meeler (n6e Clark), apod 41: J. U. Clark, aged
39; Mary Ann Winford (n^ Clark), aged 37 ; Charles Clark, aged 35: James B.
Clark, aged 33; Wesley Clark, aged 31; Ellen Jones (n^o Clark), aged 28; Irvin
Clark, aged 23. Children of W. A. Clark are as follows: Letha Clark, aged 14;
Asbury Clark, aged 11. Children of J. H. Clark: James Andy Clark, aged 12;
Etta Clark, aged 10; Wesley Clark, aged 8; Nettle Clark, aged 5. Children of
Mary Ann Winford (n6e Clark) are as follows: Hattle Winford, aged 20;
Robert Winford, aged 17; Charles Winford, aged 14: Minnie Winford, aged 11 ;
Mackey Winford, aged 9; Evert Winford, aged 6: Jessie Winford. aged 10
months. Charles Clark has one child, aged 8 yeurs. Children of Wesley Clark
are as follows: Earnest W. Clark, aged 2i years: Gertie A. Clark, aged 1^
years; Arthur Clark, aged 2 months. That all of said minor descendant appli-
cants were removed and came here with their respective parents or were bom
here; that all of said applicants are now residents of the (lioctaw Nation,
Ind. T., and have been continuously so since tlieir resi>ective removals and
birth here.
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of August, 1897.
W. H. RurilERFORD,
Special Master in Chanvrry.
Indorsed on back: 4. Moses C. Claxk et al. r. Choctitw Nation. Report of
special master in chancery. Filed Aug. 25, 1S97. E. J. Fannin, clerk.
State of Oklahoma, Pittsburg County:
I. W. B. Riley, clerk of the district court in and for said county and Strle,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and complete c<»py
of the following:
Agreement to substitute record
Substituted deposition of Rebecca Evlns.
Substituted deposition of Gilbert Cooper. ^ ^
B9282— 13 86 Digitized by V^OOglC
546 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBBB IN OKLAHOMA.
Substituted deposition of Jaclison Batteast
Substituted deposition of Orange Oolllnfl.
Notice to take depositions.
Deposition of Henry Harris.
Deposition of Willis Ivens.
Continuances.
Certificate of notary.
D^K>^tioii of Jonas Frnzier and oath of interpreter.
Certificate of notary.
Beport of special nmster.
Said papers being in tlie ease of Moses C. Clark et al. v. Choctaw Nation as
the same appear on file in my office.
In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said court
thla the 3d day of December, 1910.
[SRAL.I W. B. Riley, Clerk.
By C. L. Heflet, Deputy Clerk.
M. W. McCarley et al., Chickasaws.
Dawes Commission. No. 100. United States court, No. 4, Ardmore.
Citizenship Court, No. 77-T.
September 9, 189(1. Application made to the Dawes Commission
for tne enrollment of Daniel McDuffie^ Elizabeth McDuffie, R. H.
McDuffie, Callie H. McDuffie, Mattie L. McDuffie, Casey E. McDuf-
fie, J. M. Crawford. M. J. Crawford, J. M. Crawford, IVfary McCar-
ley, Manda Jarvas, (Jeorge Jarvas, Sarah Ann Jarvas, Nancy Jarvas.
W. M. McCarley, Nancy McCarley, James McCarley, Eli AtcCarley,
Sidney McCarley, Macom McCarley, Sarah McCarley, Walter Mc-
Carley, Effie McCarley, Ernest McCarle3^ and Nancy McCarley as
citizens by blood, with the exception of George Jarvas and M. W.
McCarley, who applied a.s intermarried citizens.
Said application sets up the fact that the applicants had applied
to the Chickasaw court of claims, and that after hearing the claim
tlte court i.ssued the following certificate:
CKRTIFICATF. OF CITIZENSHIP.
Daniel McDiiftle r. (^hickasaw Nation. Suit for citizenship.
Office Court of Claims.
Chickasaw Nation.
Tinhominpo, Ind. T., Febrnarp t^. 1895.
This day this cause otiuie on for hearing. After examining evidence produced
by plaintiffs the court was of the opinion that the following parties to the s«lt
are Chlekasaws, and are entitled to the rights of Chickasaw citizens: Daniel
McDuffie and his wife, Elizabeth McDuffie, and their children, R. H., Callie HL,
Mattie. Lee. and Cnsey E. McDuffie: J. M. Crawford and his wife. M. J. Craw-
ford; Mrs. Amanda .Tarvis and her children. Sarah Ann, Mary Jane, and Nancy
Jarvis: William McCarley and his wife, Nancy McCarley, and their children,
Sarah Ann, Eli, Sidney, Macom. Walter, Effie. Mary. Earnest, and Nnney
McCarley.
Given under our hands this day and date above written.
C. A. BuRBis, Chairman.
W. H. BOURLAND,
J. Brown,
Coftifniftee.
Attest :
R. H. Nichols. Clerk.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
PIVB CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 547
The application sets out that the findings of the court of claims
was sent to the Chickasaw legislature for its approval, but that the
legislaiure, without having received the testimony or being advised
of the facts, passed upon the case adversely.
The application then affirmatively states that the applicants are
Chickasaw Indians by blood, and direct descendants oi Nancy Fra-
zier, a Chickasaw Indian, who resided in the State of Mississippi
prior to the removal of the Chickasaw tribe to the Indian Territory.
There was attached to the application the proceedings before the
court of claims, consisting of their petition in that court, and the
depositions taken in said court of William Simpson and J. F. Wolf,
in addition to evidence of applicants.
William Simpson testified that he knew Nancy Frazier in Mis-
sissippi; that she was a Chickasaw by blood; that she had five chil-
dren, Henry Frazier, Tom Frazier, Nancy Frazier, Polly Frazier,
and Charles Frazier. That they lived in Yalobusha County, Miss.
That Nancy Frazier married Archie McDuffie. That Norman Mc-
Duffie was a son of Archie and Nancy McDuffie. That the said
Norman married, but that he (witness) did not know the names of
his children. That Nancy Frazier came to the Chickasaw Nation in
1835 or 1837.
J. S. Wolf testified to the same facts.
October 3, 1896. Answer of the Chickasaw Nation filed denying
the right of the Chickasaw court of claims to issue certificates of
citizenship and setting up the action of the legislature nullifying the
action of the court of claims.
Attached to the answer were two ex parte impeaching affidavits
of B. S. Kemp and H. F. Murry.
Kemp, who swears that he ''is an Indian, names nine persons, two
of which are witnesses in this case, as having a notoriously bad
reputation for truth and veracity. He also states he came to the
Indian Territory with the Chickasaws in 1837; that he never knew
but one Nancy Frazier, who had one child each by two different men,
but that he did not know their names nor does he state whether they
were male or female children or what became of them. H. F. Murry
swears that witness J. F. Wolf is not worthy of belief.
November 10, 1896. The Dawes Commissfon rendered its decision
in this case in words and figures as follows, to wit, " Rejected."
An appeal was taken from the above decision to the United States
court for the southern district of the Indian Territory sitting at
Ardmore and referred by that court to a master in chancery.
The following is quoted from the testimony of J. M. Crawford
before the master in chancery:
Q. I will ask you if you have not always been reco[?nized and treated as a
Chickasaw Indian and have enjoyed the privileges that any other Chickasaw
Indian enjoys? — A. Yes, sir; I have always been recognized as a citizen of
the Chickasaw Nj.tion and have got pe|;niits from Chickasaw government and
have had orders to put men off my place from the Chickasaw Nation on three
different occasions, and at one time I brouglit one of the men in arms.
Q. Did you ever get any permits? — ^A. Yes, sir; I got permits five or six
years ago.
Q. Have you any of them now? — A. No. sir; I have none with me at this time,
but Charles Carter has written me permits.
Q. lias anyone ever held land under you? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? — A. Old mail Brocketts held land under me three years, and I was
holding land by virtue of me being a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
548 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Cross-examination :
Q. Did yon apply for annuity in 1892? — ^A. Yes, sir; I did.
Q. Did you draw any? — A. No, sir.
Q. Who was your partner in business? — A. Judge Carter.
Q. When were you before the court of claims? — ^A. In 1889.
Q. Who was your attorney? — A. Judge Carter.
March 12. 1898. There was filed the report of the master in
chancery reading as follows:
In the United States court for the southern district of the Indian Territory
at Ardmore,
Daniel McDuffie, plaintiff, r. The Chickasaw Nation, defendant. Masters' report.
To the Hon. Hosea Townsejnd, Judge:
The plaintiff. Daniel McDnffie, and his wife, Elizabeth McDuffie, and their
children. R. H., Callle H., Mollle I.ee. and Casey E. McDuffie; J. M. Crawford
and his wife, M. J. Crawford : George Jarvis and his wife, Amanda Jarvis, and
their children, Snrah Ann, Mary Jane, and Nancy Jarvis; W. M. McCarley and
his wife. Nancy McCarley, and their children, James, Ell, Sydney, Macon, Sarali,
Walter, Effie, Mary, Ernest, and Nancy McCarley all claim to be Chickasaw
Indlans and lineal descendants of Nancy Frazler, a full-blood Chickasaw
Indian, and pray to be enrolled as such.
The defendant denies that plaintiffs are Chickasaw Indians or entitled to
mrollment, and alleges that said Nancy Frazler, under whom plaintiffs claim
their right, only had two children, one of whose names Is Winchester Colbert
and the other Is named I..eader ; that none of these applicants are desemdants
of the snld Nancy Frazler; and that she Is the only Chickasaw Indian by that
name it ever knew. He further alleges that the court created by the Chicka-
saw legislature, who issued the certificates of citizenship to the plaintiffs
herein, hrd no right to issue the same; that the Chickasaw l^lslature was the
only legal tribunal authorized to enroll Chickasaw Indians.
It appears that the material part of plaintiffs' testimony was taken upon an
application for enrollment before a court created by the Chickasaw legislature,
and that said testimony was used before the Dawes Commission upon the appli-
cation of plaintiffs for enrollment.
It appears that plaintiffs' attorneys rely upon the certificates of citizenship
given plaintiffs by the said Indian court, as well as the testimony taken l)efore
said court and since. The six first sections of the act creating said court pro-
vides for the court and Its organization. The seventh section provides that the
chairman of said court shall make a complete transcript of their proceedings,
to be submitted to the legislature for their approval or rejection, and that their
decision shall be final. The legislature to pass on said applications should have
met the first Monday in September, 1895, but did not meet until October of that
year. They then rejected all the applicants that had obtained certificates from
sjiid court.
I don't attach much importance to the issuance of said certificates by said
court. In my opinion It only shows that they were satisfied that the applicants
were citizens. Their acts were extra Judicial, and therefore do not bind the
Chickasaw Nation nor entitle the applicants to enrollment
I have directed my search for light to the confused mass of testimony taken
before said Indian court, together with testimony taken before me since then.*
A large part of the testimony taken since Is impeaching testimony. The
plaintiffs offer in support of their application the testimony of William Simpson,
who says he is a Chickasaw Indian by blood and 72 years of age; that he knew
Nancy Frazler In the State of Mississippi and knew her to be a Chickasaw
Indian by blood; that she married and Jiad five children, one of whom married
Archie McDuffie; tluJt they had several children born unto them, one of whom
was named Norman McDuffie; that Norman McDuffie married and had several
children born unto him. James Frazier, a witness for plaintiff, says that the
above testimony of William Simpson Is true In every detail. J. S. Wolf, a
witness for the plaintiff, says that he knew Nancy Frazler in Mississippi ; that
she was a full-blood Chickasaw Indian; that she had a daughter who married
ArcWe McDuffie. Nancy McCarley says that she Is a daughter of Dorothy
McDuffie and a lineal descendant of the said Nancy Frazier. Amanda Jarvis
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 549
says she is a daughter of Norman McDuffie and a lineal descendant of the said
Nancy Frazler, who was a full-blood Chickasaw Indian. Mrs. J. M. Crawford
who is about 46 years of age, says that her grandmother* s name was Nancy
Frazier, and witness connects all applicants herein as descendants of said Nancy
Frazler. The applicants fully establish the fact that they are legal descendants
of Norman McDuffie by testimony that is not contradicted. Now» the only
question for me to decide by the testimony is whether or not this Norman
McDuffie is a descendant of the said Nancy Frazier. The defendants contend
that Norman McDuffie is not a legal descendant of said Nancy Frazier, and
offer as proof the testimony of one Ben Kemp, who says that he is a Chickasaw
Indian and knew Nancy Frazier, and knows that the applicants herein are not
descendants of hers. This witness makes an impeaching affidavit in which he
Impeaches the testimony of J. S. Wolf and William Simpson, who testify in this
case; and Fred Humphrey, William Fisher, John Kemp, and Patsy Hall, who
did not testify in this case, were also impeached by said Ben Kemp. In my
opinion he has weakened his own testimony ; he knows too many persons whose
reputation for truth «nd veracity is bad. The reputation of the witness, Simp-
son, is fully sustained by other witnesses, who testify to his good reputation
for truth and veracity.
I am of the opinion from the testimony of Simpson- and Wolf and from the
testimony of the family tradition that all the applicants herein are the legal
descendants of the said Nancy Frazier, who was a Chickasaw Indian, except
the said Elizabeth McDuffie, J. M. Crawford, George Jarvis, and W. M. McClear-
ley, who are Intermarried citizens, and that they are each and all of them
entitled to enrollment as such.
I therefore recommend that a decree be entered directing that they be en-
rolled uiK)n the rolls of the Dawes Commission as members of the Chickasaw
Tribe of Indians.
John Hinkle,
Master in Chancery,
March 14, 1898. Judgment of the United States court rendered
decreeing applicants citizens of the Chickasaw Nation. Certified
copy of said judgment hereto attached.
September 22, 1898. The following applicants appeared before
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and were enrolled:
Daniel McDuffie, Elizabeth McDuffie, Charlie H. McDuffie, Cassie E.
McDuffie, Nancy McCarley, James McCarley, Eli McCarley, Macon
McCarley, Sarah McCarley, Walter McCarley, Effie McCarley, Mary
McCarley, Ernest McCarlev, Nancy McCarley, Amanda Jarvis,
Mary Jane Troutj Sidnev McCarley, Sarah Ann Short, and Nancy
Newberry, all as citizens oy blood, and on the same day tlie following
•were enrolled as intermarriefd : M. W. McCarley and George Jarvis.
Subsequent thereto applications were made within the time pro-
vided by law for the enrollment of the following-named children:
Herman Allen McCarley, Elma Myrtle McCarley, Jennie Anne
Trout, Cynthia May Trout, Stella Lillis Trout, George Orville Trout,
Cassie E. McCarley, Hessie Viola McCarley, Sallie May Newberry,
Effie Myrtle New&erry, Benjamin Westmoreland Trout, Thomas
Norman Trout, Robert E. Lee Trout, Harvey Cleveland Trout, Bessie
Elizabeth Trout, Gracy Ella Trout, Maudie Bell M. McDuffie, Daniel
Frizzell, and Sarah E. Frizzell.
December 17, 1902. Judmient of United States court set aside
by decision of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in the " test
case."
March 17, 1903. Record transferred to citizenship court for trial
de novo.
June 16, 1904. Applicants filed motion in citizenship court to dis-
miss their case in that court.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
550 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The record now in this case does not disclose whether said motion
was ever considered, except that among the papers appears a decree
si^ed by the members of the court declaring the applicants non-
citizens.
June 29, 1905. Decree above mentioned filed.
February 14, 1906. And on subsequent days applications were
filed for all the above-named parties under the regulations adopted
in the Lula West case, the petitions alleging tribal enrolhnent.
February 16, 1907. Decision rendered by the Commissioner to
the Five Civilized Tribes dismissing petition for the enrollment of
Nancy McCarley, wife of M. W. McCarley, because of her death
prior to September 25, 1902, and denying the petition of all the
other applicants because the record dicl not show tribal enrollment
or recognition.
February 20, 1907. Record forwarded department.
March 2, 1907. Action of the commissioner approved by the
secretary.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that the report of the
master and the judgment of the United States court correctly set out
the facts in this case as to the blood and continual residence in the
Chickasaw Nation of the applicants and that they are in fact
Chickasaws entitled to be placea upon the rolls as such.
Those entitled are: Daniel McDuffie, Elizabeth McDuffie, Charles
H. McDuffie, Cassie E. McDiiffie, Nancy McCarley, James McCarley^
Eli McCarley, Macom McCarley, Sarah McCarley, Walter McCarley,
Effie McCarley, Mary McCarley, Ernest McCarley, Nancy McCar-
ley, Amanda Jarvis, Mary Jane Trout, Sidney McCarley^ Sarah
Ann Short, Nancy Newberr>\ M. W. McCarley, George Jarvis, Har-
man Allen McCarley, Elma Myrtle McCarley, Jennie Anne Trout,
Cynthia Ann Trout. Stella Lillis Trout, George Orville Trout, Cas-
sie E. McCarley, Hessie Viola McCarley, Sallie May Newberry, Effie
Myrtle Newberry, Benjamin Westmoreland Trout, Thomas Norman
Trout, Robert E. Lee Trout, Harvev Cleveland Trout, Bessie Eliza-
beth Trout, Gracy Ella Trout, Maudie Bell M. McDuffie, Daniel
Frizzell, Sarah E. Frizzell (40 in all).
Respectfully submitted. Walter S. Field.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS.
United States Coitit. Indian Terntorp, Southern DUitriet, 98:
At n stated term of the TuitetV States court U\ tlxe Indiau Territory,
district, begun and tiad in tlie court rooms at Ardmore, In the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November. In the year of our T^ord 1897.
Present : The Hon. Hosei Townsend, jud^e of said court.
On the Htli day of March. 18t)8, being a regular day of Raid term of said
court, among tlie i>roceeding8 had were the following, to wit :
jUDGMEirr.
Daniel McDuffie et al. r. Chickasaw Nation.
This day this ciuse coming on to be heard, upon the pleadings, exhibits,
proof, master's report and exceptions filed tliereto by the Chiclcasaw Nation,
and the court upon the hearing of said case is of the opinion and therefore
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 551
adjudges that the report of the master filed herein be, and the same is hereby,
confirmed in all respects; and the court, being sulflciently advised upon the
whole case:
Doth order, adjudge, and decree that the plaintiffs and applicants, Daniel
McDufl'ey, R. H. McDuffle, Callle H. McDuffle, Mattie Lee McDuffie. Cassie E.
McDuffle, Mrs. M. J. Crawford, Amanda Jarvis, Sarah Ann Jarvis, Mary Jane
Jarvis. Nancy Jarvis, Nancy McCarley, James McOarley, Eli McCarley, Sind^
McCarley, Macon McCarley, Sarah McCarley, Walter McCarley, Effie Mc-
Oarley, Mary McCarley, Earnest McCarley, and Nancy McCarley, each and
all be admitted as members of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians by blood, and
that they have all the rights, privileges, and immunities as such.
It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the applicants, Elizabeth
McDuffie. wife of Daniel McDuffle: J. M. Crawford, husband of M. J. Craw-
ford; M. W. McCarley. husband of Nancy McCarley: and George Jarvis, hus-
band of Amanda Jarvis, each and ail be admitted as niemt)ers of the Chickasaw
Tribe of Indians by intermarriage, and that they each have all the rights,
privileges, and immunities as such.
The clerk of this court Is hereby ordered to transmit a certlfleAl copy of this
Judgment to the Coiimiission to the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians, which
■aid commission is hereby directed to place the names of each and all the
above-named parties upon the rolls of citizenship made out by it for the
Chickasaw Nation as members of sajd Chickasaw Tribe of Indians in the way
and manner as herein indicated.
To this Judgment the Chickasaw Nation excepts. *
IGNITED States Court, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territoi'y aforesaid, do hereby. certify- that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the
same appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and attixetl the seal of
said court at Ardmqre, this 4th day of May, A. D. 1808.
fsEAL.l C. M. Campbkll, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records i>ertain-
Ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw. ('hlcka.«<!iw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a judgment of the court dated March 14, 1898, in the msitter of the
©nrollmeut of Daniel McDuffie et al. as members of the Chickusaw Nation.
J. Gko. Wright,
Commissioner to the Fire Cirilized Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Chiekni<air Records.
MuBKOGEE, Okla., Norembcr 7, J9W.
Evans IIiix et al., Cho( taws.
Commission No. (1896 case) 214. Ignited States court No. 12.
Citizenship court No. 66-T.
September 9, 1896. Original application made to the Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribas for the admission of Evans Hill, Eliza-
beth Ann Hill, wife; Sampson E. Hill, Clark V. Hill, John T.
Briscoe, T^onard Briscoe, !Zemma L. Briscoe. Nolie N. Briscoe,
Maggie E. Briscoe, Thomas W. Briscoe, Arthm- Briscx)e, Fannie E.
Briscoe, John S. Briscoe, children : William C. Row, xVancy Ann Row,
wife; Amanda Melissa Row, William Arthur Row, James Tlioraas
Row, Dora Bell Row. Rosa Lee Row. John Franklin Row, children ;
John Melton Penn, as citizens by blood of the Chicka.saw Nation.
Answer of the Chickasaw Nation duly filed.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
552 FIVE CniLIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA/
November 28, 189C. Commission rendered a decree denying the
applications of the persons above named. Appeal was taken from
this decision to the United States court for the southern district of
Indian Territorj', Ardmore, in court case No. 12.
March 10, 1898. United States court reversed the decision of the
commission and admitted Evans Hill, Elizabeth Ann Hill, Sampson
E. Hill, Clark V. Hill, John T. Briscoe, Maggie E. Briscoe, S. M.
Briscoe, I^eonard Briscoe, Zemma L. Briscoe. Nollie N. Briscoe,
Thomas \V. Briscoe, Arthur Briscoe, Fannie E. Briscoe, John S.
Briscoe, W. A. Bri^^coe, M. L. Briscoe, Dora Gibson, William Gibson,
Rena Gibson, Belle Briscoe Cleaver, James Briscoe, Willis Briscoe,
Earl Briscoe, Etoy Briscoe, Bessie Briscoe, William C. Row, Nanqr
Ann Row, Amanda Melissa Row, William Arthur Row, James
Thomas Row, Dora Belle Row, Rosa Lee Row, John Franklin Row,
and rejected R. L. Gibson, J. E. Cleaver, who are not original appli-
cants before the couunission.
May 27, 1899. United States court entered an order eliminating
the following names from its judgment and denying their rights to
citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation: W. E. Briscoe, M. L. Briscoe,
Dora Gibson, William Gibson, Rena Gibson, Belle Briscoe Cleaver,
James Briscoe, Willis Briscoe, Earl Briscoe, Etoy Briscoe, Bessie
Briscoe.
Certified copies of both judgments hereto attached.
December 17, 1902. Judgment of United States court vacated by
decision of Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in the case of The
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations or Tribes of Indians r. J. T. et al.,
known as the '' test case."
The applicants took an appeal and had their case certified to the
Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court for a trial de novo.
June 29, 1904. Decree of Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court
denying the citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation of the following
j)ersons: Evans Hill, Elizabeth Ann Hill, Sampson E. Hill. Clark v.
Hill, John F. Briscoe (John T.), S. M. Briscoe, Leonara Briscoe,
Zerma L. (Zemma L.) Briscoe. Xollie X. Briscoe, Maggie E. Briscoe,
Thomas W. Briscoe. Arthur Briscoe, Fannie E. Briscoe, • John S.
Briscoe, William C. Row, Amanda Melissa Row, William Arthur
Row, James Thomas Row, Dora Belle Row, Rosa Lee Row (Rosa
Belle), John Frank Row.
Applications were made to the Commission to the Five Civilized
Trills for the enrollment of the persons admitted by the decree of the
United States court and their children as citizens of the Chickasaw
Nati(m under the acts of Congress of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902.
Subsequent to the judgment of the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizen-
ship court denying these applicants the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes because of the decree of the citizenship court dis-
missed the applications for the enrollment of their minor children.
As to those persons whose names were interpolated in the proceed-
ings l)efore the United States court, applications were made to the
commission for their enrollment as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation
under the act of Congress of June 28, 1898, as follows :
October 17, 1898: Belle B. Cleaver.
October 18, 1898: James Briscoe.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 553
October 18, 1898: W. A. Briscoe, M. L. Briscoe, Dena Briscoe,
Willis Briscoe, Earl Briscoe, Bessie Briscpe, Etoy Briscoe, William
D. Gibson, Reena Gibson.
January 21, 1905. Decision of commission refusing applicants be-
cause their blood relatives had been denied by the citizenship court.
^ February 9, 1905. Decision of commission approved by depart-
ment. Applications were made for the enrollment of the following
children oi those persons whose names appear in the judgment oi
the United States court as entitled to citizenship :
November 20, 1902 : Ruble Jewel Ann Hill.
July 2, 1906: Lillie Hill, children of Sampson E. Hill.
September 22, 1898 : William S. Penn.
May 24, 1900: Earl E. Penn.
June 22, 1906 : Thomas Briscoe Penn, children of Amanda M. Penn
(formerly Row).
October 17, 1898 : Maudie L. Briscoe, child of John T. Briscoe.
June 12, 1906 : Melton Briscoe, child of Thomas W. Briscoe.
September 22, 1898 : Mabel J. Row, child of William C. Row.
June 22, 1906 : Jewel Row, child of William A. Row.
February 12, 1901 : Emmett B. Briscoe, John T. Briscoe, Tina O.
Briscoe, children of Leonard Briscoe.
November 4, 1899 : Lela Steele.
August 6, 1901 : Maggie E. Steele.
June 22, 1906 : Lloid Steele, Ross Reynal Steele, children of Zemma
L. Steele (formerly Briscoe).
November 4, 1899 : Osa Cletus Williams, child of Nollie N. Wil-
liams, formerly Briscoe.
February 6, 1906. Petitions were filed with the Commissioner to
the Five Civilized Tribes under the ruling of the department in the
Loula West case praying for the enrollment of the applicants herein.
iVll of the applicants herein base their claim to citizenship in the
Chickasaw Nation on their Chickasaw Indian blood and long resi-
dence in the nation (since 1860) and upon the additional ground that
cjertain of the applicants, viz: Evans Hill, Sampson E. Hul, Clark V.
Hill, William C. Row, Nancy A. Row, Amanda Melissa Penn, Wil-
liam Arthur Rbw, James Thomas Row, Dora Belle Row, Rosa Lee
Row, John Franklin Row, S. M. Briscoe, Leonard Briscoe, Zemma
Steele, Nollie N. Williams, Maggie E. Briscoe, Thomas W. Briscoe,
Arthur Briscoe, Fannie E. Briscoe, John S. Briscoe were in the
year 1895 admitted with many other claimants to citizenship in the
Chickasaw Nation by the Chickasaw court of claims. A certificate
of citizenship was issued to them, which reads as follows :
This Is to certify that Mr. Evans Hill has pre.seiitoil his affidavit proving his
identity, and we, after exaniing ;;11 tlie lawful evidence, do hereby decide that
Mr. Evans Hill and nil his heirs, viz: Sampson E. Hill, Clark V. Hill, Elizjibeth
A. Hill. J. T. Briscoe :ind his heirs. Xnna Roe are C'hlcknsaws by blood and are
entitled to all the rights and privileges of same.
Given under mir hand this the 21st day of February. 1805.
O. A. BuBRis, Chairman.
W. H. BOURLAND,
J. Brown,
Committee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
554 FIVE CrV^lLIZED TRIBES IK OKLAHOMA.
Section 7 of the act of the Chickasaw legislature, approved De-
cember 22, 18W, entitled :'An act to establish a court of claims," pro-
vides as follows:
Be it further enacted. That tbe chairman of snid court shall make a com-
plete transcript copy of the jn-oceedlngs of mid court In all cases to be sub-
mitted to tbe legislature for their approval or rejection, and their declaioiw
shall be final.
The Chickasaw legislature subsequently on October 28, 1895,
an act declarine: all citizenship, certificates issued by said court null
and void and of no legal effect as against the Chickasaw Nation, and
also declaring the parties for whose benefit said certificates were
issued not citizens of the Chickasaw Nation.
The act of the Chickasaw council declaring void all certificates
issued by the court of claims was based upon the actiwi of the court
in issuing the certificates without first submitting the findings of the
court and the record in each case to the legislature for approval.
There was no investigation into the rights of ithe individual claim-
ants by the legislature. (The action of the Indian authorities, coun-
cil for claimants submit, is entitled to but scant consideration other
than that the proof submitted to the court was in the opinion of that
court sufficient to citizenship.)
The record before tlie United States court in this case was de-
stroyed bv fire and therefore the proof then before the court can not
be here reviewed, but as thi«^ same question had been squarely before
the court in the case of Daniel McDuffie et al., presented to your
committee, it is fair to assume that the court in this case, as in that,
disregarded the action of the Chickasaw authorities and decided the
case on its merits from the record before it.
Februarv 7, 1907. Decision of commissioner was rendered hold-
ing that the applicants did not appear to have occupied a status en-
titling them to enrollment as Chickasaws. and that the decree of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court was final and the petition
for enrollment was denied.
Note. — The commission at this time had no authority to enroll
anvone whose name was not on some tribal roll.
i^Iarch 4, 1907. Department approved this action of the commis-
sioner. Applicants before the commission in 1896 alleged that they
came from Tennessee to the Chickasaw Nation about the year 1860,
and that they had resided in the said Chickasaw Nation since that
time: that citizenship certificates were issued to them by the Chicka-
saw court of claims; that in compliance with the act creating said
court of claims applicants' case, with many others, was sent to tbe
Chickasaw le^slature for its approval; that when the case came
before the legislature the then district attorney for the Chickasaw
Nation complained of irregularities, and upon his motion to dismiss
said case the same was acted on adversely by the legislature without
examination into the merits of the case.
Copies of the depositions used before the Chickasaw court of
claims were offered in evidence showing that Evans Hill and the
other claimants herein derive their Chickasaw blood from Polly
Matlock, who was the daughter of Charley Matlock; that Charley
Matlock was a Chickasaw by blood and lived and died in Overton
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIHBS IK OKLAHOMA. 555
County, Miss.; that the claimants herein are the children and grand-
children of Polly Matlock, or their children.
. Counsel for claimants represent that inasmuch as the claimants
have established that they are of Chickasaw blood and their long
residence in the Chickasaw Nation is not questioned that they are
entitled to enrollment.
Those entitled to enrollment are Evans Hill, Elizabeth Ann Hill,
Sampson E. Hill, Clark V. Hill, Jdiin T. Briscoe, Maggie E. Bris-
coe, I^eonard Briscoe, Zemma L. Briscoe, Nollie N. Briscoe, Thomas
W. Briscoe, Arthur Briscoe, Fannie E. Briscoe, John S. Briscoe,
W. A. Briscoe, M. L. Briscoe, Dora Gibson, Dora Briscoe, William
Gibson, Rena Gibson, Belle Briscoe Cleaver, James Briscoe, Willis
Briscoe, Earl Briscoe, Etoy Briscoe, Bessie Briscoe, William C. Row,
Nancy Ann Row, Amanda Melissa Row, William Arthur Row, James
Thomas Row, Dora Belle Row, Rosa Dee Row, John Franklin Row,
R. L. Gibson, J. E. Cleaver.
New borns for whose enrollment applications were made within
the time provided by law : Rubie Jewel Ann Hill, Verda Hill, Lillie
Hill, William S. Penn, Earl E. Penn, Thomas Briscoe Penn, Maudie
L. Briscoe, Melton Briscoe, Mabel J. Row, Jewel Row, Emmett B.
Briscoe, John T. Briscoe, Tina O. Briscoe, Lela S. Steele, Maggie
E. Steele, Uoid Steele, Ross Reynal Steele, Osa Cletus Williams.
(Fifty-three in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field,
Attorney for claimants,
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS.
I'NiTED States C5ourt,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a stated temi of the United States court in tbe Indian Territory. •
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 15th day of November, In the year of our Lord 1899.
Present : The Hon. Hosea Townsend, judge of said court.
On the 10th day of March, 1898, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Evans Hill et al. v. Chickasaw Nation. 12. Judgment.
This day this caHse coming on to be heard on this the 10th day of March,
1898. upon the pleadings, evidence, master's report, and exceptions thereto;
and it apr)earing to the court from said master's reiwrt and the evidence herein
that the i>artles hereinafter named and set forth are Chickasaw Indians by
blood, and as such are entitled to citizenship In the Chickasaw Nation or
Tribe of Indians: and the court being fully advised as to the whole case, finds
that the parties hereinafter named liave duly prosecuted their application for
citizenship and liave fully met every requirement of law therefor; and the
court having declared them to be citizens of the Chickasaw Nation. It is
therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the exceptions to the master's
report be overruled and that the plea to the Jurisdiction interposed by the
defendant Is also overruled, and siild master's report Is in all things confirmed.
It Is therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the following-named
iwirties be, and the siime are hereby, admitted to citizenship In the Chickasaw
Tribe or Nation of Indians, to wit :
Evans HIU, Elizabeth Ann Hill. Sampson E. Hill, Clark V. Hill, John T.
Briscoe, Maggie E. Briscoe. S. M. Briscoe, I^eonard Briscoe. Zemma L. Briscoe,
Nollie N. Briscoe. Thomas W. Briscoe, Arthur Briscoe, Fannie E. Briscoe, John
g. Briscoe, W. A. Briscoe, M. L. Briscoe, Dora Gibson, Dora Briscoe. William
Gibson, Bena Gibson, Belle Briscoe Cleaver, James Brl.scoe, Willis Briscoe. Earl
Briscoe, Etoy Briscoe, Bessie Briscoe, William C. Row, Nancy Ann Row.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
556 FIVE CIVIIilZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Amanda Melissa Row, William Arthur Row, James Thomas Row, Dora Belle
Row, Rose Lee Row, John Franlflin Row.
It is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged that all the aforesaid parties
possess and be permitted to wijoy and exercise all the rights, privileges, atid
immunities of citizens and members of said Chickasaw Tribe or Nation of
Indians.
It is further ordered, decreed, and adjudged that the following-named
persons be rejected, to wit : R. L. Gibson and J. E. Cleaver.
The clerk of this court is hereby ordered and directed to certify a copy of
this judgment to the Dawes Commission, and said commission is hereby
directed to place the names of the above-named persons who are admitted to
citizenship upon the rolls of citizenship for the Chickasaw Tribe of 'Indians.
To all of which the defendant in open court excepts.
United States Coubt,
Indian Territory, southern district, as:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said court
4Jt Ardmore this 12th day of April, A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.l S. M. Campbexl, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a judgment of the court dated March 10, 1898, in the matter of the
enrollment of Evans Hill et al. as members of the Chickasaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. ANGELL,
Clerk in charge of Chickasaw records.
Muskogee. Okla., November. 3, 1910.
transcript of proceedings.
United States Court,
Indian Territory, southern district, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory, southern
district, begun and had In the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 11th day of April, in the year of our Ix)rd 1899.
Present. The Hon. Ilosea Townsend, judge of said court.
On the 27th day of May, 1899, being a regular day of said term of said court,
among the proceedings had were the following, to wit:
Evans Hill et al. v. Chickasaw Nation. 12. Order correcting judgment.
This day came on to be heard on a motion to correct the judgment heretofore
rendered in this cause, and it appearing to the court that the names of W. A.
Briscoe, M. L. Briscoe, Dora Gibson, Dora Briscoe. William Gibson, Rena Gib-
son, Belle Briscoe Cleaver, James Briscoe, Willis Briscoe, Earl Briscoe, Etoy
Briscoe, and Bessie Briscoe were added by counsel after appeal was perfected
and the papers tiled In this court as admitted by said counsel, and the court
being of the opinion that tlie court had no jurisdiction over said parties by rea-
son of their not being parties to this action and said names ought not to have
been contained in said judgment.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that said judgment
in this cause be so corrected and modified as to eliminate said named parties
from the same, and that said judgment remain in full force as to the other
parties contained therein, and it is further ordered that the Chickasaw Nation
have judgment against the parties herein named for all costs incurred by reason
hereof, that said parties be rejected and denied to citizenship in the Chickasaw
Nation, and the clerk is directed to furnish a certified copy of this judgment
at once to the Dawes Commission so that the judgment heretofore entered may
be corrected by said commission.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVB CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 557
United States Coubt,
Indian Territory, southern district, 88 :
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 26th day of February, A. D. 1900.
[seal] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certi-
fied copy of an order correcting judgment of the court, dated May 27, 1899,
in the matter of the enrollment of Evans Hill et al. as members of the Chicka-
saw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Trihes,
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in charge of Chickasaw records,
Muskogee, Okla., November 5, 1910,
SiiAs Sharp et al., Mississippi Choctaws.
1896 Choctaw cases, 827.
September 9, 1896. Original application to Commission to Five
Civilized Tribes for citizenship m the Choctaw Nation made by
Emily Jane Sharp. In her petition were included Emily Jane Sharp
and Silas Sharp, Martin Sharp, Eliza Sharp, now Harrington, and
her children, Ruth Harrington, Rose Harrington, Thomas Harring-
ton, her grandchildren, and Rhoda Sharp, now Vineyard, Richard
Sharp, Ella Sharp, now Hendricks, Edward Sharp, her children.
Answer of the Choctaw Nation, filed October 22, 1896.
December 4, 1896. Decision of commission rendered denying ap-
flication, from which no appeal was taken to United States court in
ndian Territory, as provided by act of June 10, 1896. In her appli-
cation Emily Jane Sharp alleged that she was 58 years of age; that
she was borne in Mississippi and her parent's name was Silas Moore,
and that her great grandmother, Silas Moore's mother, was a full-blood
Choctaw Indian ; that she was married to Jack Sharp in Calhoughn
County, Miss., in the year 1865, and came to the Territory after their
marriage and had since lived there.
Affidavits were filed in support of their case as follows :
Andrew Jackson Avant testified that he was 74 years of age; post
office was Troga, Tex.; occupation, farming; that he was well
acquainted with applicant and knew her to be a daughter of Ebenezer
Moore ; that Ebenezer Moore was a Choctaw Indian ; and the son of
old Silas Moore, who was known by all as a Choctaw ; that applicant
was married to Jack Sharp about the year 1865.
Lottie Filmore testified, through Mary Jane Melton, interpreter:
She was an old woman near 80 or 85 years of age; was a fuU-blood
Chickasaw Indian who came from Mississippi to Indian Territory
Digitized by V^OOQIC
558 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBB8 IN OKLAHOMA.
with her tribe. She knew Silas Moore in Mississippi; he was a
Choctaw Indian by blood; she knew Emily Ann (Moore) Quaid.
and lived abmit 4 miles from her; said Emily Ann Qnaid was a
dang:hter of Silas Moore, and she knew both of these persons in
Mississippi; from her knowledge of the family and the general ap-
pearance of Emily Ann Quaid she believes her to be Choctaw by
blood.
Sam Perry is 84 years old; post office, Wiley, Ind. T. He knew
Silas Moore in Mississippi before he came to Indian Territory in
1982 to 1883. Silas Moore was a Choctaw Indian by blood, and
always so considered; Emily Moore, now Quaid, was daughter of
Silas Moore, and a Choctaw by blood.
Joint affidavit of Martha Scott and W. Pettington to the effect
that Emily Ann Quaid and Benson Wright Moore are children of
Silas Moore, and that Jane Sharp is a graddaughter of Silas Moore.
1896 Choctaw case, 351.
September 9, 1896. Original application to Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes for citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by
blood under the act of June 10, 1896, of Benson W. Moore ; Octavia
Moore (now Hurst) his children: and Lizzie Hurst, Breed Hurst,
his grandchildren; and Adile Moore (now Boots); Silas Water
Moore, and Thomas Lee Moore.
Answer by Choctaw Nation filed October 22, 1896.
December 2, 1896. Commission rendered decision denying appli-
cation. From this decision no appeal was taken as provided bv act
of June 10, 1896.
In his petition Benson W. Moore stated that he was 62 years old:
occupation, a farmer: post office, MahnsvUle, Ind. T.; he was bom
in Hines County, Miss.: his father's name was Silas Moore, who was
a Choctaw Indian and lived in Mississippi until 1864, when he
moved to Texas and lived until his death, which occurred in 1872;
Silas Moore's mother, his grandmother, was a full-blood Choctaw
Indian, who died in Lafayette Coimty, Miss., about the year 1843;
he was married in 1860 to Susan Brewer, and by her had eight chil-
dren, six of whom were living and included in his petition.
Affidavits, of Sam Perrv and Ix)ttie Filmore and joint affidavit of
Martha ScH)tt and W. Pennington, like those introduced in the
previous case, were filed.
1896 Choctaw, No. 67.
September 9. 1896. Original application to Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes under act of Congress of June 10, 1896, for
citizenship by blood in the Choctaw Nation by Emily Ann Quaid,
Benjamin Quaid, Hugh Quaid, America Quaid (now Bennett),
Young H. Quaid, Jenumiah Quaid (now Ennan), Th(Hnas Quaid.
Answer of Choctaw Nation filed October 22, 1896.
December 1, 1896. Commission rendered decision denjring appli-
cation. No appeal was taken from this decision as provided by act
of June 10, 1896.
In her petition Emily Ann Quaid alleged that she was 77 years
of age and lived at Wiley, Ind. T.; that her father, Silas Moore,;was
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 559
a Choctaw Indian and left Mississippi in 1846 and went to Texas;
that Silas Moore's mother, applicant's grandmother, was a full-
blood Choctaw Indian; that applicant was bom in Alabama and was
married in Hinee County, Miss., to Thomas Quaid on September 11,
1837; that she had never made application to the Choctaw council
as shte was poor and had not the required amount of money.
In support of this application the following affidavits were in-
troduced :
Affidavit of Lottie Filmore, identical with that introduced in the
previous case. Joint affidavit of Martha Scott and W. Pennington,
as introduced in previous cases.
Affidavit of B. W. Quaid, who stated that his mother's name was
Emily Ann Moore, and that her father's nami was Silas Moore, and
that he had often heard his OTandf ather say he was a Choctaw Indian ;
that he was a very old man, oetween 88 and 90 years of age, when he
lied.
Affidavit of Sam Perry, as introduced in previous cases.
Affidavit of Y. H. Quaid, who stated that his mother's maiden
name was Emily Moore; her father's name was Silas Moore; he
remembered his grandfather well, and had always been told he was
a Choctaw Indian, and that his grandfathers mother was said to be
9 full-blood CTioctaw Indian.
1899. Application made at Caddo, Ind. T., for enrollment as a
citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation by Silas Sharp.
September 14, 1901. Application maile to Commission to the
Five Civilized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Missis-
sippi Choctaw of Silas Sharp and Orby Sharp, Willie Florence
Sharp, Claud Sharp, Edgar Snarp, Fred Sharp, Nola Sharp; lived
in Indian Territory about 15 vears. in Texas 8 years, Arkansas 20
years; bom in Mississippi an^ lived there till he was 4 years old
and moved to Arkansas; never held any land in Indian Territo^.
September 12, 1901. Application made to Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi
Choctaw of Elihu Quaid ; lived in Indian Territory five years ; never
held any land.
1899. Application to Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
at Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a citizen of the Choctaw
Nation by William A. Quaid; liven in Indan Territory five years;
bom and raised in Texas, and lived there until he came to Indian
Territory.
1899. " Application to Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Caddo, Ina. T., for enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw
Nation of Benson W. Moore.
September 21, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi
Choctaws of Benson W. Moore, Lizzie Hurst, Bruce Hurst, his
grandchildren; lived in Indian Territory seven years; lived on land
for five years and paid no rent; lived in Texas 40 years before he
came to Indian Territory; was bom in Mississippi, and lived there
till he moved to Texas.
Septembei: 21, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi
Choctaw of Thomas L. Moore; lived in Indian Territory seven
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
560 FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA,
years; born and raised in Texas; lived there till he carae to Indian
Territory ; rents land.
1899. Application to Commission to Five Civilized Tribes, Atoka,
Ind. T., for enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation
of Rosa A. Moore.
September 21, 1901. Application to Commission to Five Civilized
Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaws of
Rosa Moore and Clarence Moore, her child ; lived in Indian Terri-
tory seven years; born and raised in Texas; lived there till she
moved to Indian Territory; don't hold any land.
September 21, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of Oscar Moore and John A. Moore, his child; lived in Indian Terri-
tory seven years; prior to that lived in Texas, where he was bom and
raised ; rents land.
September 21, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaw
of Willis Moore; lived in Indian Territory seven years; prior to that
lived in Texas, where he was bom and raised ; holds no land.
1899. Application to Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes at
Atoka, Ind. T., for enrollment as a citizen by blood of Choctaw
Nation of Emily Quade.
September 21, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw of Emily Quade; lived in Indian Territory about 11 years; in
Texas about 40 years; in Mississippi about 20; was bom in Alabama
and went to Mississippi when 2 years old ; does not hold any land.
1899. Application to commission at Atoka. Ind. T., for enrollment
as a citizen oy blood of Choctaw Nation of Emily J. Innan.
September 21, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of Emily G. Innan and America Elizabeth Chapman, Thomas Har-
rington Chapman; Napoleon Bonepart Chapman, and Emily Jane
Reed, her children; lived in Indian Territory 10 years; born and
raised in Texas ; lived there ; she went to Indian Territory ; rents land.
September 12, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T.. for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of America J. Bennett, Luther H. Lon^, Columbus J. Long, Robert B.
Long, and Ester Loramie Bennett; lived in Indian Territory eight
years; born and raised in Texas; lived there till she moved to Indian
Territory, holding land and not paying rent for two years.
September 12, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw of Emma Elizabeth Smith; lived in Indian Territory eight
years; prior to that in Texas, where she was bom and raised: holds
no land.
September 12, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw of Maggie Bell Strather: lived in Indian Territory six or seven
vears; prior to that lived in Texas^ where she was born and raised;
Kolds no land.
September 4, 1901. Application to Commis.sion to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
nVB OIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 561
taw of Benjamin W. Quaid; lived in Texas since 1849; born in
Mississippi arid lived there till he was 9 years old, when he went to
Texas.
1899. Application to Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Atoka, Ind. T., for enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation or
Susan L. Wells.
September 4, 1901. Application to Commisnon to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of Susan L. Wells, Martha Elizabeth Wells. John Richinson Wells,
Robert Benjamin Wells, Carrie Ellen Wells, James Herman Wells,
Ethel Irene Wells, and Mamie Lodeska Wells: lived in Indian Terri-
tory seven years; bom and raised in Texas and lived there prior to
removal to Indian Territory ; rents land.
September 4, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw of Lee Harrington Quaid; lived in Indian Territory 11 years;
born in Texas and lived there till he removed to Indian Territory;
holds no land.
1899. Application to Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Caddo, Ind. T., for enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of
Thomas Quaid. ^ ♦
September 5, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of Thomas Quaid, Thomas D. Quaid, Fler May Quaid, Simpson W.
Quaid, John Wesley Quaid, Josie t. Quaid, and Essie M. Quaid;
lived there till he moved to Indian Ten'itory : held land for two years.
September 5, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five (^civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T.. for identification as Mississippi Choc-
taws of Minnie Nugent and Thenie May Nugent; lived in Indian
Territory six years; bom in Texas; lived there till she came to
Indian Territory ; holds no land.
September 4, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choc
taws of Yoimg Harrington Quaid, John L. Quaid, William Quaid,
Lillie M. Quaid, Charles R. Quaid, and Rebecca Emily Quaid ; lived
in Indian Territory six years; bom and raised in Texas and lived
there till he came to Indian Territory: holding land about a year.
September 7, 1901. Application to the Commission to the Five
Civihzed Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi
Choctaws of Simmerrude Ellen Tice and Julia May Tice; lived ?n
Texas at time of application; had lived in Indian Territory four or
five months the preceding winter.
September 10, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five (Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw of Renny Moore; lived in Indian Territory two weeks; in Texas
two years; in Indian Territory about a year: and prior to that in
Texas, where he was bom and raised.
1899. Application to Commission to the Five Civilized Tril)e.N,
Durant, Ina. T., for enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of
John T. Quaid.
September 25, 1901. Application to Coniniis>ion to the Five Civi»
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choc-
taws of John T. Quaid, Fred R. Quaid, Frank B. Quaid, William J.
69282-13 86 Digi^i.^d by ^^OOglC
562 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Quaid, and Vernon R. Quaid; lived in Indian Territory three years;
prior to that lived in Texas, where he was bom and raised.
September 25, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choc-
taws of Simpson M. Moore, Felix F. Moore, lillie Moore, Andrew H.
Moore, Mollie Moore, Lemuel Moore, and Minion Moore; lived in
Texas, where he was born, all his life.
September 27, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi Choc-
taw of Walter D. Moore ; lived in Texas all his life.
September 25, 1901. Application to Commission of the Five Civi-
lized Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choc-
taws of Mollie Pirtle, Roscoe Pirtle, Monnie Pirtle, Consouela Pirtle^
and Rosella Pirtle ; lived in Texas, where she was born and raised.
October 8, 1901. Application to Ccwnmission to the Five Civilized
Tribes, Atoka, Ind. T., for identification as Mississippi Choctaws of
Felix F. Moore, Walter L. Moore, Nona V. Moore, Mary E. Moore,
I^eta B. Moore, and Janice M. Moore; lived in Indian Territory about
nine months; before that in Texas, where he was born and raised.
November 0, 1901. Application to Commission to the Five Civ-
ilized Tribes, Muskogee, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi
Choctaw of John R. Moore; lived in Indian Territorv about a month;
prior to that in Texas, where he was born and raised.
March 4, 1902. Application to Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes, Muskogee, Ind. T.. for identification as Mississippi Choctaws
of Earnest W. Long and Earnest I^e Long; lived in Indian Tei*ri-
tory about eight or nine years; prior to that in Texas, where they
were born and raised.
January 24, 1902. Application to Commission to the Five Civ-
ilized Tribes, Muskogee, Ind. T., for identification as a Mississippi
Choctaw of Booty Moore; lived in Indian Territory about a month;
prior to that in Texas, where he was born and raiseci.
September 8. 1902. Commission rendered a decision holding evi-
dence was insufficient to identify applicants herein as Mississippi
Choctaws. The 1890 application was shown in the decision. On the
same date the record was forw arded to department. No evidence had
been introduced exce^)t the testimony of the various applicants and
evidence of the marriage of certain of the parties to this case.
December 5. 1902. The Indian Office recommends the approval of
the commission decision.
December 15, 1902. The department addressed a letter to the
Indian Office requesting fuilher report on this case, in which the
following appeal's:
The testimony in this case shows thnt the parties base their claims to identi-
fication as Mississippi Choctaws under this application because of their descent
from Silas Moore and Morning Dumas, his wife, and their children. Ebeuesw
Moore, Emily Quaid, Sea ton Moore, Benson W. Moore, and Simpson Moore, of
whom Ebenezer and EmUy were horn prior to 1880. They claim that these
parties were Choctaw Indians and residents of the Choctaw Nation in Missis-
sippi at the time of the making of the treaty of 1S30.
An exandnation had been made of the records of the office with reference to
the names of the different parties from whom these applicants claim descent,
a*nd it is disc'overed that neither tlieir names nor any names similar to tliem
appear anum^ the mines (^f tiiose who complied or attempted to comply with
the provisit>ns of the fourteenth article of the Choctaw treaty of 1830.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
PIVB CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 563
In connection with the last paragraph above quoted your attention is dliwcted
to your report of July 16, 1902 (Land 31530, 1902), wherein you state: " I now
have the honor to report that the records of this office show that John Moore
<:lainied land under the fourteenth article of the Choctaw treaty of 1830, for
himself and his children, in all aggregating 3| sections ; this claim was approved
by the President of the United States and the following patented so far as the
records of the I^nd Office show * ♦ * in the State of Mississippi."
The record In the present case shows that the Silas Moore to whom you refer
in your report of December 5, 1902, was the son of one John Moore by his
wife, Nancy; that the latter was a full-blood Choctaw and that her father's
name was Jacob Folsom. You are therefore requested to make a supplemental
report showing whether the information relative to compliance with the provi-
sions of the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830 or with the subsequent acts
relating thereto on the part of said John Moore and Jacob Folsom.
January 8, 1903. The Indian Office reported to the department,
which report was in part as follows:
The recommendation of this office in this case was based on the fact that
Silas Moore was the head of a family In 1830, and under the holding of the
department already made In the case of Susan S. Burton et al., applicants for
identification as Mississippi Choctaws, claimants under Susannah Oraham, they
were not entitled to because their ancestor, the daughter of Susannah Graham,
was not herself an applicant, although she was at that time the bend of a family.
There were two persons by the name of John Moore, one of whose status
had been reported on as given herein. He submitted proof as to his continued
residence on the land described for the period of five years succeeding the date
of the Choctaw treaty of 1830.
This office never had any Information, outside of the amount of land set aside
for Moore, as to the number of children there were In his family.
The other John Moore was emigrated by the (iovemnient of the United States
to the Choctaw Nation west, and he arrived in the Choctaw Nation west on
the 23d day of Der'ember, 1832. Tie was a member of the company of Kohoo-
wak, and his family consisted of two male children under 10 years of age,
one male person of 35 and under no» one female of 10 and under 25, and one
female of 25 years and under 50. making in all a family of five persons.
There was a Nancy Moore, an applicant as the head of a family under the
fourteenth article of the Choctaw treaty. She was not the ^Nife, but the
daughter of John Moore, and her husband was Capt. John Perry. At the time
of the application she had a son named Commodore, over 10 years of age. Her
application was rejected on the ground that she was not the head of a family,
and voluntarily abandoned her residence abou^ three years after the treaty.
There was a Jacob Folsom, a member of the Choctaw tribe in Mississippi in
1.S30. lie was the head of a family, but did not apply for land under any of
the articles of the Choctaw treaty. He was emigrated west by the Govern-
ment with his family, consisting of one male under 10 years of age, one male
under 25 years of age, one female over 10 years and under 25 years of age. and
three slaves. He arrived in the Choctaw Nation west on the 20th day of
January. 1S32.
If It Is now tlie judgment of the department under the opinion of the Assistant
Attorney General for the Interior Department of October 30. 1002 (I. T. I). 4631
and 5S47, 1002). that the descendants of the head of a family living in 1830,
who did not comply, bu* whose parents did comply, are entitled to i)artlclpate
in the distribution of Choctaw lands under present legislation, it would be nec-
essary that further proof be called for from the applicants in the case under
consideration herein, that the John Moore, through whom they claim descent,
was the John Moore who did comply with the jirovisions of the fourteenth article
of the Choctaw treaty of 1S30.
February 14, 1003. Department requested .sTipplemental report from
Indian Office with reference to John and Xancy Moore, John Moore,
havincr received hmd nnder the fourteenth article of the treaty, and
Xancy Moore having applied as, the head of a family and been
rejected.
May 1, 1903. The Indian Office reported in part as follows:
The records of this o&ice show that the reservation of John Moore was
approved by President Andrew Jackson, June 3, 1S36. This reservation (W^C
564 FIVE CIVTUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Bet aside for him by George W. Martio, locating agent, and his import contain-
ing this location was dated October 21, 1830. The land set aside for Jolm
Moore was sections 11, 13. 14. and the north half of section 23, all in township
20 north, range 11 east, Webster County. Miss. He had seven children, four
under 10 years of age, and three over 10. This land was never patented to
him, and still stands on the books of the land office as his reservation. This
office can not give the reason why the land was never patented at this time,
but the record given as follows will have a tendency to explain the reason.
(Brown and Kincannon's notes of proceedings in certifying Choctaw claims in
Mississippi, No. 95. p. 276.)
The affidavit of F. Oakley, filed in this case proving the continued residence
of the reservee for five years from the ratification of the treaty. The reservee
in this case lias sold his land in parcels to different persons, who all want pat-
ents to their own names, but understanding that it is a rule in the department
to issue one patent for one reservation, the commission recommends the issu-
ance of the patent In the name of the reservee. Applied by Kincannon, Novem-
ber, 1840.
There was another John Moore, i member of the Choctaw tribe east of the
Mississippi in 1830. having a family of five persons, who were transported to
the Choctaw Nation west by the Government In the general Choctaw emigration,
rations having been Issued to them first on the 23(1 day of December, 1832.
It is also discovered that there was a John Moore, who purchased the NB. I
of the NE. i and the SW. i of the NE. i of sec. 21, T. 5 N., R. 14 E. of the
land district of Augusta, Miss., surrendering therefor, as assignee, a part of
Choctaw script. No. 178 B. This piece of script was Issued in behalf of Antum-
ber, Istonoka, and Hokaloche, children of Atanahato, over 10 years of age, and
was for 320 acres, as will be seen by reference to the map of Mississippi. The
land taken under this script is located in Clarke County, quite remote from the
home of the John Moore who received land under the Choctaw treaty. The
testimony in this office relative to Nancy Moore is as follows:
"Nancy Moore, a half blood, gone west last fall a year; A. Halsey, counsel;
Joseph Perry, a half-blood Choctaw, a witness for claimant, was sworn, and
deposed as follows: That he bad known Nancy Moore from the time she was
a little child ; she Is now 24 or 25 years ol^ ; the daughter of Zone John Moore,
now living on the old Natchez ^ract. She was married at the time of the
treaty to Capt. James Perry, apd when his brother John married her according
to the Choctaw fashion his old wife and her could not agree. His brother
James built a cabin for her and opened a field, where she went to live, still
continuing to be the wife of his. brother John. This cabin was about 7 miles
from his brother John, who used to go and see her and stay with her. At the
time of the treaty James Perry gave her some stock, and she had a man by
the name of Emlsha to take care of it. She lived about, sometimes at home
and sometimes at his brother John's; she had one child living with her at the
time of the treaty called Commodore, born October 25. 1830. He takes this
from a memorandum in his posession, made at the time he was bom. Commo-
dore and his mother both went west last fall a year. She moved with hi5
brother James about three years after the treaty to Yokenny-effa, where she
lived until she went west. Nancy Moore belonged at the time of the treaty
to Anthony Turmbairs company.'*
May 22, 1903. The department refers to report of Indian Office
quoted above and remands the case to the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes as follows:
It Is considered possthle that the ancestors of these applicants may have been
the Identical persons referred to in the reports of the Indian Office who were
api>arently entitled to the benefits of article 14 of the treaty of 1830. Therefore
a final adjudication of the case should not be had at the present time and the
same Is remanded to you for appropriate action In accordance with the instruc-
tions, so far as they are applicably contained In departmental letter of April 2.
1003. relative to the Mississippi Choctaw case of Harriet Adkins (M. C. R. 4964).
Auffust 7, 1903. Further hearing had in this case before commis-
sion, 3luskogee, Ind. T., at which time the testimony of Thomas S.
Ashley was taken.
Mr. Ashley testified that he was bom near Mobile. Ala., August 24,.
1820 ; that he moved to Carrol County, Miss., when mey^^wjOTe jputting
MVB CIVILIZED TRIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 565
the boundaries across the river. When asked what year, he responded
1830. He lived in Mississippi until he removed to Texas in 1873,
where he resided until the spring prior to his appearance. He was
3ila
acquainted with the applicant, Silas Sharpe, and did not know where
he was born ; that Sharpe had Choctaw blood, but did not know how
much. He knew that Emily Jane Moore, who married Silas Sharpe,
possessed Choctaw blood, but did not know how much, thought she
was a quarter blood.
(Emily Jane Moore was mother, not wife, of Silas Sharpe. Ac-
cording to the testimony of Silas Sharpe, husband of Emily Jane
Moore was Jack Sharpe. Think this must have been a mistake in
asking the question, as a little farther on he spoke of Jack Sharpe,
husband of Emily Jane Moore, and stated he did not know when
they married.)
Asked if he was acquainted with the father and mother of Emily
Jane Moore, he said, " Yes, sir; I do not know for certain, but John
Moore married Nancj." He said Emily Jane Sharpe's mother's
name, to his recollection, was Emily. Silas Moore was her father.
He knew Silas and Nancy Moore in Mississippi. Nancy was a full-
blood Choctaw. John Moore was a white man mamed to Nancy
Folsom. He was personally acquainted with both of them in Carrol
County, near Carrolton, Miss. He lived on Duck Hill Road, about
6 miles from where they lived. He first became acquainted with
them in 1830 and they were married then and had children; could
not recollect how many, but had three, named Silas, Martin, and
Jesse, whom he remembered. Martin was older than Silas and might
have been 9 or may be older than that. He did not know about
their ages. Did not know Nancy's parents' given names; they were
Folsoms and Joe Folsom was related to her.
Nancy Moore owned improvements in Mississippi in 1831; had a
house and 30 or 50 acres of land ; might have had more. Heard they
lost it somehow. The house was a pole house, built of poles and barK.
After they lost this place they went down on the Natchez road and
camped at Lapecle ; tney lived there four or five years. The last time
he saw John and Nancy Moore, as well as he can recollect, was 1844 or
1840.
At the time he knew Nancy and John Moore he knew Greenwood
Laflore, Jack Laflore, Charley Laflore, and Bill Laflore; Charlev
Laflore and Jack Laflore were Greenwood Laflore 's sons. Jack
Laflore was a grown man at this time (about 1830, he testified).
He was asked if Silas Moore, one of the three children of John and
Nancy Moore, whom he remembered, was married at that time and
answered that he was not.
In response to examination by B. Johnson, applicant's attorney,
he stated he had heard about the Dancing Babbit Creek treaty and
had heard that John and Nancy Moore went to Ward to have their
names put down. They said he had lost his land, that Ward turned
it over to the Government, and he would have to hunt another home.
He testified that he heard this from Moore himself and understood
that Ward was up on Big Sandy, near Carrolton, when Moore went
to register; that Moore told witness's father and wanted help about
getting Ward in good humor so he could get his place back.
He had a younger brother, John Ashley, living near Pearl, Rankin
County, Miss.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
566 FI\^£ CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKULHOMA.
October 1, 1903. Case was returned to department
July 13, 1904. Department approves action of Commission to the
Five tivilized Tribes. In Indian Office letter of July 6, 1004, the
Acting Commissioner of Indian Afairs affain refers to records as to
John Moore and Nancy Moore as reported former ilndian Office let-
ters, and states :
The records of this office show that Capt. John Perry, the husband of Nancy
Moore, did go west with his family, and received rations April 21. 1833. Clalm-
aats base their claim to recognition as Mississippi Choctaws on being descend-
ants from one Silas Moore, a son of John and Nancy Moore, n^e Folsom. their
great grandfather, and Ebenezer Moore, their grandfather on their mother's
side, Emily Jane Sharpe. It nowhere api>ears of record in this office that the
Nancy Moore, whose husband was Capt. John Perry, and who had a son nniued
Commodore, ever hjid a husband named John Moore, or a son named Silas
Moore, or descendants name<l Ebenezer Moore or Emily Jane Sharpe. through
whom applicants trace descent. The evidence and the records fail to show that
the Nancy Moore fn)m whom applicants claim descent is Identical with the
Naiicy Moore who received scrip under subsequent legislation relative to the
trtaty of 1830, or that a less remote ancestor or any of the ai^plicants herein
ever complied or attempted to comply with the proWslons of the treaty of 1830
or received land or scrip mider subsequent legislation relative thereto.
June 25. 190(). Motion for rehearing filed with the Commissioner
to the Five Civilized Tribes.
July 17, 1906. Motion forwarded department.
November 8, 1900. Motion for rehearing denied by department.
June 28, 1007. Motion for rehearing wa.s filed with department,
accompanied by certificate. Copy of patent issued to John Moore for
certain lands in Mississippi.
February 2, 1907. Motion for rehearing denied by department.
March 25, 1909. Department requests report upon petition of
■J. O. Poole in this case.
April 7, 1909. Report to department.
May 28, 1909. Department holds case is not analogous to Goldsby
case and declines to take action looking to enrollment of applicants.
It appears from the testimony and irom the family tree, which is
part of the record that Nancy Moore a full blood and John Moore
were the i)arentvK of Silas Moore, deceased, who married Morning
Demas or Morning Fulson or Hona Moore (seems to have been
known by all these names), deceased; that Silas Moore and his wife
had children as follows: Ebenezer Moore, Emily Moore, Seaton
Moore, Benson W. Moore, and Simpson Moore.
Ebeney.er, Seaton, and Simpson Moore were deceased at the time
of the application.
Ebenezer Moore married Mahali Moore and had one child, Emily
Jane Moore, who married Jack Sharpe.
Emily Jane Sharpe had two children, SUas Sharpe, who has six
children, Orby, Willie, Florence, Clause, Edcar, Fred, and Nola
Sharpe: and Richard Sharpe, who had no children.
Emily Moore married Tliomas J. Quaid, deceased; Emily Quaid
was Hl\ years old and the oldest claimant in this case. She had chil-
dren as follows: (1) Benjamin W. Quaid, (2) Elihu Quaid, (3)
America J. Quaid, (4) Young Harrington Quaid, (5) Emily G.
Quaid, (0) Thomas Quaid.
(1) Benjamin Quaid had three children: John T. Quaid, who had
four children, Fred R., Frank B., William J., and Vernon R. Quaid.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 5W
Susan Lodeska Quaid, who married J. M. Wells and had seven chil-
dren, Martha Elizabeth, John Richinson, Robert Benjamin, Carrie
Ellen, James Herman, Ethel Irene, and Mamie Lodeska WcUs.
Simerruda E. Quaid married R. E. Tice and had one child, Julia
May Tice.
(2) Elihu Quaid had one child, William Amburse Quaid, who had
no children.
(3) America J. Quaid married John Lona: and afterwards John
H. Bennett, and had six children: Emma Elizabeth Long, married
Newton Carrol Smith, no children; Earnest W. Long, who had one
child; Earnest L. Long; Luther H. Long; Columbus J. Long; Robert
B. Long; Ester Lorame Bennett.
(4) loung Harrington Quaid, who had mx children: Maggie Bell
Quaid, who married William Strother (no children), and John L.,
William, Lillie M., Charles R., and Rebecca Emily Quaid.
(5) Emily G. Quaid, who married James Richard Chapman, John
A. Reed, and Elaxander R. Innan, all dead, and had four children:
America Elizabeth Chapman, Thomas Harrington Chapman, Na-
poleon Bonepart Chapman, and Emily Jane Reed.
(6) Thomas Quaid, who had seven children: Thomas D. Quaid;
Minnie Quaid, who married Willie Nugent and had one child, Thenie
May Nugent ; Uler Mav Quaid ; Simpson W. ; John Wesley ; Josie
L. ; and Essie M. Quaid.
Seaton Moore had six children:
(1) Simpson M. Moore, six children: Felix F., Lillie, Andrew,
Mollie, I^nnil, and Minnon Moore.
(2) Felix F. Moore, five children: Walter L., Nona V., Mary E.,
Leta B., and Janice M. Moore.
(3) John R. Moore,
(4^ Reny Moore,
(5) Water D. Moore,
(6) Booty Moore.
Benson W. Moore, who had five children :
(1) Octavia Moore, deceased, who married l^e Hearst and had
two children, Lizzie and Bruce Hearst;
(2) Thomas L. Moore,
(3) Oscar Moore, one child. Johnny Moore;
(4) Willie Moore,
(5) Rosa Moore, who married W. R. Moore, and has one child,
(Clarence Moore.
Simpson Moore, who had one child, Mollie E. Moore, who married
George W. Pirtle and had four children : Roscoe, Monnie, Consouela,
and Kosella Pirtle.
STATEMENT BY COrNSEL.
As these applicants had resided in the Choctaw Nation for many
years prior to the making of the final rolls and are conclusively de-
scendants of a fourteenth-article Mississippi Choctaw, as shown by
the testimony hereto attached, they should now be enrolled.
Respectfully submitted.
Baixinger & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
668 FIVE CrVTLIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Department of the Interior,
Muskogee, Okla,, December 9, 1910.
In the lujitter of the application for the enrollment of Enilly Jane Shar|)e et aU
as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
Proceedings had at Durant. Okla., November 14, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney, Interior Department.
Appearances: BallinKcr & Lee, by Albert J. Ijee, attorneys for claimants;
Rodgers & Clapp, by George D. Rodgeis, attorneys for Chickasaw Nation.
Emily Jane Siiarpe, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified
as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your full name, please. — A. My given name?
^. Your married name now? — A. Sharpe. I was a Sharpe after I married.
Q. What is the Christian name, the jriven name? — A. E. J. Sharpe.
Q. What does the K. stan'l for? — A. Emily Jane Sharpe.
Q. How old are you. Mrs. Sharpe? — A. About 72 or 73, going on, past 72
a little.
Q. How long have you been living in the Indian Territory? — A. About 28
years.
Q. Where did you come from? — A. No, sir; I will take thnt back. I lived in
Texas two years before I moved up here. I have been here about 27 or 28
years since I have l)een here in the Territory.
Q. You say you lived two years in Texas? — A. Yes, sir; we started here and
stopped there about two years.
Q. Where did you start from? — A. Mississippi.
Q. What place in Mississippi? — A. Hinds County.
Q. When you came to the Territory did you take up any land of your own
or rent land? — A. No, sir; that's what we came here, was to get on my place
with the children, but they never gave us none, and been trying though all
the while.
Q. Did you ever go before the Choctaw Council? — ^A. Yes, sir; but they
rejected us.
Q. Can you remember the year you were before the council? — ^A. It*s been
about — I don't recollect exactly — it's about, I guess it*s been about 11 years
going on 12 since I went before them — ^but he rejected all of us there.
Q. I am not talking about the Dawes Commission; I am talking about the
Indian council itself. — A. No, sir; I didn't go before them.
Q. Who was your mother, Mrs. Sharpe? — A. She was a Moore.
Q. Full name? — A. McLemore was my father's wife. My father, his name
was Ebenezer Moore, and he married a Mcl^more.
Q. Your father, you say. was Ebenezer Moore? — ^A. Yes. sir.
Q. Who was his f.ithei?— A. Silas Moore.
Q. Where did he live?— A. Mississippi.
Q. Who was his father?— A. John Moore.
Q. Do you know who Silas Moore's mother was? — A. I think she was Nancy;
I never did see her : I think her name was Nancy.
Q. Do you know what her last name was? — A. No, sir; we always called her
" grandma.''
Q. You saw Silas Moore, did you? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see John Moore? — A. No, sir; if I did I don't recollect it
I knowed him from — yes. sir: he used to be — but I was so small; yes, I have
seen him, but I was ve^* little then and I don't recollect much about him.
Q. Was Nancy Indian or white? — A. Yes. sir; she was full blood.
Q. What was John Moore? — A. I don't think there was much Indian about
him; he was part: anyhow, he got his lands and his home; he got it from his
wife's side.
Q. You spoke of John Moore having land. Did he get it in Mississippi? — ^A.
Yes, sir; he lived there and got land there.
Q. Do you know that he got it from the Government? — A. Yes, sir: he
taken up, I think, just like we ought to. you know ; I think that is the way he got
his home there in an early day.
Q. Do you know how much he got? — A. No, sir; I just recollect him as our
great-grandfather, and then we left there and came to Texas, my grandfather
did, and we left him back there and he was there, the last I knew of him, in
Mississippi.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVB CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 569
Q. What county was that In?— A. Hinds County. If I ain't mistalten; lived
just 10 miles of Jacl^son, apd Jacicson was the county seat.
Q. Do you Ifuow when Silas Moore died? — ^A. Yes, sir; I heard about it. I
don't Isnow as I could tell to a day now, but of course I heard about it as soon
as we had time; I wasn't there when he died.
Q. Al)out how many years ago did he die? — A. Well, my remembrance — here's
his- daughter ; it's her — she Itnows now, I expect. He died at their house, and
he went and lived with his son.
Q. How many children have you, Mrs. SharpeV — A. Six.
Q. Did they come to the Territory with you? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. What are their names — their full names? — A. Silas Sharpe and Richard
Sharpe and Edward Sharpe, and then I got three girls.
Q. Now, wait before you give the girls' names; how old is Silas Sharpe
now? — ^A. Well, I just don't Imow whether I can tell exactly or not. I know
my own age and I know he's just
Q. He is here, is he?' — A. Yes. sir; he's about — I could give it to you if I
would study a little ; I expect he is close on to 50 or maybe 52.
Q. Then about how old is Richard?— A. He's 2.S.
Q. Richard Sharpe is A. Twenty-eight.
Q. How old is Edward? — A. He's al)out 27.
Q. You say you have three girls? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are their names? — A. One is a Vinyard and the other a Jones —
Rhoda Vinyard.
Q. Rhoda Vinyard?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old is she? — A. I don't know; I never do pay no attention to it.
There's about two years' difference in them all the way down, but I expect
Rhoda won't miSS 40 far.
Q. Do you want to say 40? — A. About 40, I guess.
Q. What is your next girl? — A. Liza.
Q. Is she married? — ^A. Yes. sir.
Q. What is her married name? — A. Jones; she's about 42.
Q. About 42?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now the other one? — A. She's about 30; that's Mrs. Ella Hendrix.
Q. Now, have all these children of yours children of their own? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they appear before the commission at the time you appeared before
It? — A. Yes, sir; nearly all of us went before it.
Q. Was application made at that time for all your children and grand-
children?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you think tliat was about 11 years ago? — A. Yes, sir; as well as I
recollect, or maybe 12.
Q. At what place, do you remember?— A. Yes; Muskogee, I believe; I don't
recollect, but I think it was Muskogee was where we went before the Dawes
Commission.
Q. Do you know the names of Silas's children? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Can you give them? — A. Ye», sir.
Q. State them, please. — A. Willie Peteet. Do you want their names as
they're married.
Q. If they are married, state their married names. — A. Well, that's it —
Willie Peteet.
Q. All right: next one?— A. Orvie.
Q. Is that a boy? — A. Yes. sir; Onie Sliari)e. he's grown and married; and
then Claud.
Q. Is he married? — A. No. sir: and then Edgar.
Q. Is he married? — ^A. No, sir; and Freddie and Ola and Bob and Conrad.
Q. How old is the youngest one, do you know? — ^A. He's going on 2 years
old ; just can stand alone and walk.
Q. Do you know Richard Sharpe's children? — \, Yes. sir.
Q. Name them. — A. Lottie and Floyd and Nora.
Q. Any of these married? — A. No. sir: and little Richard, the baby.
Q. Has Edward any children?— A. Yes. sir: he has two.
Q. Name them. — ^A. The boy's name Is Shawnee, and the girl's name — I never
did think I would like it well enough to call It.
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. How old are they, Mrs. Sharpe?— A. Them little ones?
Q. Yes. — A. One's about 4 and the other one's alH>ut 2, I guess, the baby one.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
570 FIVE CIVILIZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Now, Rboda; has she any children? — A. Yes, sir; she has six.
Q. Name those, please. — ^A. Ollie Tucker.
Q. Now the next oneV — A. Jennie Vinyard, Vemle Vinyard, and then Grade
Vlnyard and Arthur Vinyard and the other one — what is his name, that little
mean scamp V
Q. Is that the youngest one? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old is he?— A. He's about 13 or 14.
Q. Now, has Liza children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Name her children. — A. Jack and Melvin ; them's the boys.
Q. Jack and Melvin Jones, is that correct? — A. No; they are not Joneses;
she's been married twice.
Q. What are their names? — A. Harringtons: and Rosa^ that's her girl; and
then she has got two more Joneses; she's been married the second time.
Q. What are the two Jones children's names? — A. Well, I don't know; Jnst
got to think and study. One is about 11 years old and the other one, I expect,
is 7 or 8.
Q. Well, now, Mrs. Sharpe, do you know how old the youngest Jones is? —
A. She's about 5 or 6, or maybe 7 or 8.
Q. Let's get the names of Ella's children. — ^A. She has three.
Q. Klla Hendrlx, that is?— A. Yes, sir. There Is Arthur and Bud, he Is about
14, and then Charlie, he's the oldest one, he's 18.
Q. How old Is Arthur, do you know ? — A. He's about 9.
Q. Do you know about how old Jack Harrington is? — A. About 18 or 19.
Q. Do you know how old Melton Harrington is?— A. About 17.
Q. How old is Kosa Harrington? — A. She's about — I gues^ about 25. Now
them there two Jones children, it Is Ethel and Jennie; that little one wae named
after nie.
Q. How old is Ethel?— A. About 10 years old.
Q. How old is Jennie?— A. About 6, I reckon.
Q. Arthur Vinyard, how old is he?— A. He's about 18.
Q. Now Grade Vinyard? — A. Eleven.
Q. Vernle Vinyard? — A. She's about 18.
Q. Jennie Vinyard 'r — A. She's going on 20.
g. How old is Ollie Tucker?— A. About 23 or 24.
Q. Now. then, Richard's children: how old is little? — A. Going on 13.
Q. Floyd?— A. Eleven.
Q. How old is Nora ?— A. She's about 3 years old.
Q. How old is Richard? — A. Little over a year old.
Q. Now, have you thought of the name of Rhoda's last boy? — \. Robert.
Q. How old is he?— A. He's about 14.
Q. Robert Vinyard is 14?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mrs. Sharpe, what relation are you to MoUle Plrtle— A. Well, she is my
own cousin.
Q. On which side of the family? — A. Moore aide.
Q. Who was her mother?— A. Well. I know if I could think of it. She mar-
ried my uncle ; she was a Hudson ; she was a widow woman when she married
my uncle.
Q. Who was Mollle Pirtle's father'/- A. Simpson Moore.
Q. Was he a brother of your father?- A. Brother to my father.
Q. W>re you ever on the land that John Moore got from i^he Goveninient in
Mississippi ? — A. Yes. sir ; I guess I was bom on that place, as weH as I know,
but I was little and of course I don't know nothing about that, or not on my
great-grandfather's side. Now, SiUts Moore was my grandpa, the father of
these boys, . , ^ ^ ^^ ., ^
Q. But that was on the old John Moore place?— A. That's what they called
It, and it was his place, and that's all I know about it; and my father lived
there a year or two when they was tirst married, but we never stayed there long.
Q. Can you give me Uie names of all John Moore's children?— A. None but
graudpap and Martin.
Q That would be Silas and Martin?— A. Them's all the two I could recollect
and know well, and I Just can barely recollect seeing him, and we all lived
there when I was small. r ^ ,* ,
Q. Didn't have any girls, did he?— A. I don't recollect; I don't know.
Q. Did you ever hear of any?— A. No, sir; I never paid no attention that far
back; Just know and know he was and just heard my folks talk, and I was so
small I don't recollect nothing about how he looked.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVB OIVIIilZED TBIBB8 IK OKLAHOMA. 571
Mr. RoDOEBS. Have they any tribal recognition in Indian Territory?
Mr. LdEE. No, sir. Now, you mean by that no tribal enrollment or no tribal
act of council?
Mr. RoDGEBS. Yes.
Mr. Lee. No ; we don't make that claim.
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. Mrs. Sharpe, how much Indian blood do you think you have?^A. I think I
just get my blood from my great-grandfatiiier, and we know it came from there.
Q. Your great-grandfather was a half Wood?— A. Yes, sir— I don't know-
some said he was full blood and some said half, but I don't know nothing
about that; but soi^e said full blood and some said he wasn't; some said our
great-grandmother was a full-blooded ludltin.
Q. Your great-grandmother was a full-blood Indian?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your great-grandfather, it is said, had some Indian blood?— A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now, then, that is wJhere you trace your Indian blood? — A. Yes, sir; that's
where I go to get it.
Q. Now, there was none of the othws — of the Moores— married Indians that
you know of? — A. No, sir; not that I know of. Some said they married partly
Indian, but it was all white fellows as far as I knowed.
(Witness excused.)
Silas Sharpe, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee:
Q. State your full name, please. — A. Silas Sharpe.
Q. How old are you, Mr. Sharpe? — A. I am 52.
Q. Where do you live? — A. I live at Ravia, Okla.
Q. How long have you been living there? — A. I have been in and around
Ravia, within 3 or 4 miles of Ravia, about 26 years — 26 or 26 years.
Q. Who is your mother? — A. This lady here.
Q. What is her name? — ^A. Emily Jane Sharpe.
Q. Did you come to the Indian Territory at the same time she did? — ^A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Who is your father? — A. Jack Sharpe.
Q. Did you ever go before the Dawes Commission ? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whereabouts?— A. At Atoka.
Q. Do you remember the year? — A. Well, it was there about 1897 or 1898 —
thereabout them times. They were at Coll)ert, and went from there to Atoka.
Q. You don't state the year definitely, but to the best of your recollection? —
A. No. sir: but it was about that time.
Q. Was your mother with you at that time? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she go before the commission? — A. Well, she went before the com-
uiissioxi, and her luid I — I went before the commission and they called her;
and they kept me before them about three minutes, asked me a few questions,
and said they- couldn't do anything for me; and I told them my mother
wanted to get before them, and they asked her a few questions and said they
couldn't do anything for her.
Q. Do you remember what commissioner it was — that is, his name? — ^A. I
don't know his name. There was a commissioner there with a committee of
our people, Indians with them.
Q. Name any of the Indians with them? — A. No. sir; I never heard any of
the names called. I didn't stay there but a minute after I found out I
couldn't do anything; Just asked me how long I had been here, and so on,
and then I left.
Q. Give the names of your children, please. Give the name and age of
each one. — A. Norby Sharpe is 24 years old : Ola Sharpe the oldest girl.
Q. How old is she? — A. She would be about 22 now if she was living; sht's
dead.
Q. When did she die? — A. She's been dead about 11 years.
Q. Next one? — A. The next one is Willie Peteet now; she's married.
Q. How old is BheV-A. She's about 19 or 20.
Q. Has she any children? — A. No, sir.
Q. Nest one?— A. Claud.
Q. How old is he?- A. Claud is about 18.
Q. Single man?^A. Yes; lie's a single man.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
572 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Next child?— A. Ed«ar.
Q. How old is Edgar?— A. Edgar is about 14.
Q. Next one? — A. Fred.
Q. How old is he?— A. About 12.
Q. Next one?— A. Well, Nola. a girl.
Q. How old Is she? — A. She's about 9 years old.
Q. Next child?— A. Bob.
Q. How old Is Bob?— A. Bob's 4 years old.
Q. Then your next one? — ^A. Conrad.
Q. How old is he? — A. About 9 months.
Q. Can you give the date of the birth of Bob; the month and year would
probably be sufficient? — ^A. I don't believe I can give the date.
Q. Can't you state the month or year he was bom in? — ^A. Seems like It
might have been in May, but I have forgotten what day of the monthu
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. What year? Can you give the year? — A. It was in 1906, and I believe
it was — 1906. in August, I believe; I l)elieve he was bom in August.
Q. Four years last August? — ^A. Yes, sir; that's about as near as I can tell
you.
By Mr. Ijce:
Q. Do you mean this last August just past? — ^A. Yes, sir; 4 years old this
last August ; that's the date.
Q. You have heard the testimony just given by your mother a few moments
ago, did you? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you think she stated the names and ages correctly of your brothers'
and sisters' children? — A. Just about as near as I could. I have a brother
not in Oklahoma ; she never gave his name in.
Q. Did he ever live in the Territory? — A. No, sir; never did come to the
Territory.
Q. He never made any application? — A. No, sir.
By Mr. Rodoers:
Q. These others that she gave all came at the same time you did? — A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And have lived here ever since? — ^A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Do you remenil)er ever seeing any patent or paper of John Moore's or
Silas Moore's for the land they had in Mississippi? — ^A. No.
(Witness excused.)
Emily Jane Sharpe recalled, testified as follows :
By Mr. I^e:
Q. Mrs. Sharpe. do you remember seeing any patent or other paper with
reference to the title to the land that John Moore or Silas Moore was on
back there in Mississippi? — A. I don't know; my uncle — my grandfather — ^tbe
Jiouse got burned up and we have never seen it, and I guess that is where bis
business all went.
Q. Did you ever see a paper of that kind? — A. No, sir; not* as I know of.
I can't read ; I never went to school in my life.
(Witness excused.)
Silas Sharpe recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lee:
Q. I will ask you if you ever appeared before the commission at any othor
time than the time you mentioned in your testimony? — ^A. Yes, sir; I appeared
before them at Atoka.
Q. The second time at Atoka?— A. Yes, sir,
Q. What year was that: do you know?— A. Well, I don't know; let's see
Q. How many years after your first application? — ^A. About four years
after my first application. I was just studying about what year it was. Seems
it was about 1903 or 1902— somewhere along there.
Q. Did you have your mother there as a witness? — A. No, sir; she wouldn't
go nowhere. She was turned out, and I couldn't get her nowhere before th«n
T.gain. There was no one went before them but me.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
nVB CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 573
This evidence Is to be considered also In the MoUie Plrtle case and Silas
Sharpe case. (See Mississippi Choctaw applications numbered M. C. R. 3629
and 3540.)
(Witness excused.)
MoLLiE PiBTLE, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows :
By Mr. Lee :
Q. Mrs. Plrtle, did you hear the testimony of Mrs. Sharpe this morning?—
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember her stating who your mother was? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did she say your mother was? — A. Said she was a Hudson.
Q. Is that correct? — A. It is correct in one sense of the word; she married
Hudson and then married my father; but her name, her original name, was a
Morris.
Q. Was Morris her maiden name? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then she married Hudson? — A. Yes, sir; he died in the war, and then
she married my father ; my father was Simpson Moore.
(Witness excused.)
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceedings
had in the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of his stenographic notes.
Albebt G. McMillan.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of December, 1910.
[seal.] Habby Montague,
Notary Public.
R. Haoar and S. Loman.
Hugo, Okla., February 2S, 1912,
Chas. D. Carteb, BIsq.,
Washington, D. O.
Deab Mb. Cabteb: You will remember I wrote you some time ago with ref-
erence to the claims of a number of Choctaw Indians with whom I have con-
tracts to get them enrolled. I have taken the testimony in behalf of a large
number of them (75 in all), which will be properly submitted.
I desire to ask your aid in behalf of Just two of them — these being the only
two that I know personally, of my own knowledge, should be enrolled. The first
is Sylvester Loman, a full-blood Indian boy, 22 years of age, the son of Ellas
Loman and Sarah Jackson — ^an illegitimate. He is penniless and absolutely
friendless, being deserted by both his father and mother. I have ample proof
that he is a full-blood Choctaw Indian, bom in 1892, at Antlers. This proof I
have sent to Washington to Webster Ballinger. This boy needs his allotment,
and I want him to get it, whether I ever receive a cent for it or not
The other case Is that of R. Hagar. whom I believe you know. This is a
simple-minded old man who employed a " quack ** attorney several years ago to
get bim enrolled, and he thought until 1906 that he had been enrolled. Now
his witnesses are dead. His father was Sterling Hagar, an Indian by blood,
and lived nenr Idnbel at an old trading post called Eagletown. R. Hagar was
bom In the Choctaw Nation, and is now past 70 years of age. He served in the
Civil War, Joining at Mena, Ark. I have known him 12 years, and I know
several Indians wlio will swear they are kin, or they have always understood they
were kin, but none of them can tra:*e it past the present generation. I believe
you are acquainted with this old man, and If so you know, as I do, that he has
always been recognized as an Indian by blood and always voted in the tribal
elections, ever since the Civil War. I ask your aid in these two because I
know that Justice will be done if these' two are put on; and the last one, at
least, it is not likely I can get on without your aid. The other cases I have,
I think, are also meritorious, but as I do not know of my own knowledge I do
not ask you to trouble about them. These I know to be worthy and entitled to
an allotment, and I think you will be doing your full duty to extend your kindly
offices to their assistance.
With best personal regards, I remain, Diait«edtevV^ClQ.Qle
Yours, very truly, ^'9'^K^ D.'^tJriWa. ^
574 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBE6 IN OKLAHOMA.
State of Oklahoma, Le Flore Oountp, sa:
Caroline Jackson, being duly sworn, on oath states : I live at Poteau, Oida.,
In Le Flore Ck)unty. I am about 50 years old. I was bom and raised in the
Choctaw Nation, Ind. T. I know Sarah Jackson. She is my sidter-in-law.
I knew Elias Loman in his lifetime. I knew him about eight or nine years. He
was a fuU-blood Choctaw Indian. He lived near Antlers, In the Choctaw
Nation, Ind. T. I also know Sylvester Ix>man. He is the son of Elias Loman
and Sarah Jackson. I was present when Sylvester Loman was bom and have
known him all his life. Elias Loman's father was named Jim Ix>man, and
he had a brother named Clay Loman. Elias Loman's wife was named Nar-
cissy Ix)man. She is now dead, and Elias Loman is also dead.
Clay Ijoman's wife was named Slllen Ix)man, and she is still alive. She
lives near Antlers, Okla.
Sylvester Loman is living at Poteau, Okla., with his mother, Sarah Jackson.
Caboline (her x mark) Jackson.
Witness to mark :
Eben L. Taylor.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of February, 1912.
[SEAL.] Eben L. Taylor,
Notary Public.
My commission expires May 30, 1915.
State of Oklahoma, Le Flore County, 88 :
Sarah Jackson, being duly sworn, on oath states: I live at Poteau, Le Flore
County, Okla. I am 49 years old. I was born in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T.,
in what was then Cedar County, near Doaksville. I lived in that neighborhood
fi round Doaksville and Antlers all my life until I moved to Poteau, about two
months ago. I knew E3lias Ix)man In his lifetime. He was a full-blood Choc-
taw Indian. I knew him about six years. I also know Sylvester Loman. He
is my son and the son of Elias Loman. I was never married to Elias Ix>man.
but lived with him for about six months at Antlers, in the Choctaw Nation,
Ind. T., and Sylvester Loman is our child. Sylvester Loman was born July
27. 1802, at Antlers, in the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., and has lived in Indian
Territory and Oklahoma all his life.
Elias Loman's father was named .flni I^oman, and EHas Loman had a brother
named Clay Loman, who was enrolled as a member of the Choctaw Tribe of
Indians. Ellas Loman died before he was placed on the final rolls. Clay
Loman's wife was named Sillen Loman, and she is still living near Antlers,
Okla. Clay Loman and Sillen Loman have a Son named Wilken Loman, who
is living near Antlers, Okla.
Ellas Loman's wife was named Narcissy I^oman. She was enrolled as a
Choctaw Indian. She died about eight or nine years ago.
Sylvester lioman is living with me, and has lived with me all his life.
Sarah (her x mark) Jackson.
Witness to mark :
Eben L. Taylor.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 7th day of February, 1912.
[seal,! Eben L. Taylor,
Notary Public.
My commission expires May 30, 1915.
Clay Loman, brother of applicant's father, is enrolled on the fin-
ally approved rolls. No. 4524, as a Choctaw by blood, together with
his wife, Sillen I^man, and son, Wilken Loman, enrolled opposite
Nos. 4525 and 4526, respectively.
The cases of R. Hagar and Sylvester Loman are submitted by
E. D. Copping,
Webster BALLiNOiai,
Attorneys,
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 575
Sallie a. Vaughn et al., M. C. P. No. 396.
Cora M. Stotts et al., M. C. P. No. 393.
June 20, 1900. Application made to commission at Colbert, Ind.
T., for the enrollment of Sallie A. Vaughn and her minor children,
Martha T. Vaughn, William Wesley Vaughn, Oscar Roy Vaughn,
James Bennett Vaughn and applicant's two minor sisters, Carrie B.
Oldham and Clemmie P. Oldham.
June 20, 1900. Application made to commission at Colbert, Ind.
T., for the enrollment of Cora M. Stotts and her minor children,
Kuthie Leet Stotts and Everett V. StottSj as Mississippi Choctaw
Indians, claiming under the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830.
As the act of May 31, 1900, prohibited the commission from receiv-
ing, considering, or making any record of the application of any per-
son (except fourteenth article, Mississippi Choctaws) who was not
a recognized and enrolled citizen of the nations, application for the
enrollment of claimants as Mississippi Choctaws was the only appli-
cation claimants could submit that would enable them to maJke a
record of their cases before the commission.
The evidence taken at the time the applications were submitted is
clear upon the following points: Sallie A. Vaughn, 38 years old,
daughter of Mary Oldham, one-half blood Choctaw, and grand-
daughter of Henry Latham, a full-blood Choctaw and member of the
tribe in Mississippi in 1830. Claimant had resided in the nations 12
years continuously; held land and improved it the same as all en-
rolled Choctaws and had been recognized by the Choctaws and
Chickasaws as entitled to full rights. AVhen asked by the com-
mission :
Q. Since you have not applied for enroUmeiit, why have you made these
improvements V — A. Because I was a Choctaw and had a rijfht here, and they
advise<l me to hold my place (meaning the Choctaw Indians).
She further testified that she had two cousins, Walton and Jim
Patterson, on the final rolls. An examination of the 1896 roll ^dis-
closed the name of Walton Patterson opposite No. 1034, page 156,
and the name of Jim Patterson opposite Xo. 10250, page 260. She
further testified that this was the first application she had ever made,
because her father, who was a white man, had prevented her from
going before the commission, who considered it to be a disgrace to be
an Indian.
Cora M. Stotts, 23 years old, daughter of Mary Oldham, had lived
in the nations 15 years and possessed identically the same qualifica-
tions as her sister, Sallie A. Vaughn.
. July 25, 1902. The commission rendered its decision denying
claimants enrollment, first, because their names did not appear on the
1896 roll, and, second, because they had not established that they or
their ancestors had taken land under the fourteenth article of the
treaty of 1830 and had notified the Indian agent and had same
recorded.
August 25, 1902. The Secretary approved the decision of the
commission.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
576 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
These claimants are Choctaw Indians. Their residence in the
nations is longer than the average residence of those on the final rolls.
Their relatives are on the final rolls. Had the " Curtis Act " been
carried out they vrould undoubtedly have been enrolled, but a subse-
quent act, construed technically by the commission, has excluded
them. They were prevented from l>eing enrolled as Choctaw Indians
by blood solely because their names did not appear on the 1896 tribal
roll. Counsel respectfully submit that their enrollment on the 1896
roll of the Choctaw Indians by the Indian authorities could not add
to their rights, for thev were members of the tribes by blood and
residence, as held by the Assistant Attorney General m the Long
case, and reason and justice demands their enrollment.
Those thus entitled are: Sallie A. Vaughn, Martha T. Vaughn^
William Wesley Vaughn, Oscar Roy Vaughn, James Bennett Vaughn,
Carrie B. Oldham, Clemmie P. Oldham, Cora M. Stotts, Ruthie Lee
Stotts, and Everett V. Stotts.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Fieu).
James M. Meeks et al.,
Dawes Commission, No. —
August 7, 1899. Appeared before Commissioner McKennon at
Calvin, Ind. T., and applied for enrollment. The commissionei!
asked but one question bearing upon his right to enrollment. He
asked if the applicants were upon the tribal rolls and upon the appli-
cant replying that he was not on the tribal rolls the commissioner
informed him that his enrollment would be refused.
June 6, 1900. Again appeared before the commission at Atoka,
at which time a hearing was had which developed the following
f actg :
J. M. Meeks is the son of Seamon Meeks, who married a Choctaw
woman in the State of Mississippi and removed to the Choctaw Na-
tion in the early days. J. M. Meeks and his brother. Jacob Meeks,
were born in ScuUyville County, Choctaw Nation, but J. M. Meeks
left the nation after growing into manhood and remained out until
1897, when he returned. He has lived continuously in the nation
since that time. His brother, Jacob Meeks. and his family are on the
final rolls of the Choctaw Nation, No. 15737.
August 29, 1900. The commission rendered a decision denying the
application for enrollment on the ground that as the applicants'
name did not appear upon the rolls of the nation the commission
was, by the act of May 31, 1900, precluded from enrolling them.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
As J. M. Meeks was bom a citizen of the Choctaw Nation and had
removed to and in good faith settled in the nation prior to June 28,
1898, as required by act of Congress of that date, and being unques-
tionably of Indian blood, he should have been enrolled by the com-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 577
mission in 1899 under authority conferred upon the commission by
the act of June 28, 1898. There should also have been enrolled
Joseph H. Brunton, the grandson of Jacob Meeks, above referred to
as ^o. 15737 on the approved Choctaw roll. The mother of this boy
died August 12, 1894. She was the daughter of Jacob Meeks. The
child's father took him out of the nation January 15, 1895, and he
returned after March 4, 1907, and before he reached his majority.
Those entitled to enrollment are: J. M. Meeks and his children;
Mary E. Pointer (nte Meeks) ; Nancv J. Summers (nee Meeks) ;
J. W. Meeks; J. A. Meeks; R. A. Meeks; J. S. Meeks and children,
Novella and Rubv; F. E. Meeks and children, W. M., L. T., J. M.,
L. E., Alva, and Lillian M.; Mary Ann (Meeks) Gist, now deceased,
together with her children, Jacob M., Nora B., and James H., and
grandson, WiUiam M. Standrige: Austin Meeks; Vinnie Meeks:
Joseph Brunton, grandson of Jacoo Meeks. And also the family oi
C. W. Meeks, who were before Judge Pollock, of the department, in
1910. Also the families of Amanda Meeks and J. H. Meeks, blood
relatives of Jacob Meeks.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee,
Walter S. Field,
Attorneys for Claimants.
CLASS 5.
In the following cases rejected bv the citizenship court, the testi-
mony of claimants before the t^^nited States courts stand uncon-
tradicted, and the finding of the United States court in favor of
claimants should be confirmed by Congress.
Jambs C. Johnson et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 1026. United States court, No. 62. Citi-
zenship court, No. 39.
C/onsolidated with
James J. Bennight et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 916. United States court, No. 62. Citi-
zenship court. No. 39.
September 7, 1896. Application submitted by James J. Bennight
for tne enrollment of himself and 30 other persons as members of
the Choctaw Nation by blood, adoption, or intermarriage.
September 9, 1896. Application submitted to the commission for
the enrollment of James C. Johnson and 23 others, 21 of whom claim
their right to enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw Nation by blood
and 3 by intermarriage.
69282—18 37
Digitized by VjOOQIC
578 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Claimants in both applications claim through the same common
ancestor.
The record shows : The leading claimants allege that they are the
grandchildren of the Choctaw chief Mushalatubtee, a fiill-blood. and
children of Rebecca Williams, n^ Mnshalatubbee, a three-fourths
Choctaw Indian woman. Chief Mnshalatubbee and his daughter,
Isabel, moved to the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., in 1831. The descent
of the claimants from said ancestry is conclusively shown, many of
claimants being three-sixteenths Choctaw blood. It is alleged that in
1892 some of the claimants applied to the Choctaw council, throug;h
their attorney, J. S. Mullen, for enrollment. Before the Choctaw
<*ouncil would consider the application the payment of a fee of $700
was exacted. Claimants being unable to raise the money, could not
secure action on their application. The following year the same
claimants returned to the Choctaw council personalty, and sought
admission. This time the council broke up in a drunken brawl, and
ho action was taken. Among the witnesses who testify as to the
blood and descent of the claimants are two of the oldest and best
known citizens of the Choctaw Nation. One of the witnesses was a
member of the Choctaw senate in 1896. The record is clear that
claimants are of Choctaw Indian blood and have been recognized as
members of the Choctaw Tribe.
December 4 and 5. 1896. The commission rendered decisions in
both cases in words and figures as follows: "Application denied."
From the above decisions appeals were taken to the United States
court, central district, Indian Territory. Additional testimony was
taken, many witnesses appearing and testifying.
September 11. 1897. The master in chancery filed his report in the
case, which was as follows :
In the United States court In the Indian Territory, central district, at South
McAlester.
James J. Beniglit et al., plaintiffs, i*. The Choctaw Nation, defendant. Report
of master in chancery.
This cause was duly filed before the Dawes Commission September 7. 1896,
the plaintiffs claiming citizenship as Choctaw Indians by blood. The defendant
answered or pleaded, denying? the jurlfidictlon and authority of the Dawes C<)m-
mtssion to hear and determine the cause, and denying the legality of the rules
and procedure of the Dawes Commission, and denying that the evidence adduced
in the case is sufficient to establish plaintiffs' claim to citizenship.
The Dawes Commission gave judgment for defendant December 4. 1896, from
which the pbiintiffs duly appejiled.
I find from the evidence that applicants Susan Benight, Sarah Brogdon, and
Maiy Vandgriff are each three-sixteenths blood Choctaw Indians; that they and
all of their descendants whose names are set out In this case are residents of
the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., but the evidence does not show how long they hare
been here, except R. S. Bennlght, three thirty-seconds Choctaw. The evidence
shows that he and his children have been living in the Choctaw Naticm about
four years ; that none of the intermarried white men applicants of this branch
of the case were married according to the Choctaw law. I find that the appli-
cant James C. Johnston moved here to the Choctaw Nation from the State of
Misainsipi 38 years ago; that he is a three-sixteentliB Choctaw Indian: that lie
lived 10 or 12 years of this 38 years in the State of Arkansas, but that be and
all his descendants whose names are set out in this case have lived continu-
ously in the Choctaw Nation since 18S4: that his descendants (except those
l»om here) were all minors when they w^re movetl back here by their parents
in 1884. I find that Laura C. McKinly is a three-sixteenths Choctaw and
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 579
that she and her family were born aud raised and have always lived here In
the Choctaw Nation. I find that Lena A. Williams and brother, Samuel C.
Williams, ara three-sixteenths Choctaw Indians, and were born and raised and
have always lived in the Choctaw Nation.
Respectfully submitted this day of August, 1897.
W. B. Rutherford,
Special Master in Chaneei-p.
September 11, 1897. A decree was entered admitting the following
persons to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation: Richard S. Benight,
Luther Benight, Winn Benight, Dora Jeff Benight, Sarah D. Brog-
don, Wesley H. Brogdon, Jodie J. Brogdon, Allamenta Brogdbn,
Ruby Brogdon, Hazy Ann F. Vandergriff, Amanda I. Vandergriff,
James M. Vandergriff, William P. Vandergriff, Emma L. Vander-
griff, Annie C. Vandergriff, Davey D. Vandergriff, Sarah McClarty,
Elton E. McClarty, Burr McClarty, James C Johnson, S. Ann Stone-
cipher. James B/ Stonecipher, Essie May Stonecipher, Bessie Ber-
than Stonecipher, Roscoe Stonecipher, Dortus Parish, Nellie T.
Parish, Milus Johnson, Atrus Johnson, Alvin Johnson, William C.
Johnson, Jessie B. Jolinson, Escoe Johnson, Addie May Johnson,
Laura C. McKinlv, Samuel M. McKinly, Josephine C. McKinly,
John I^o McKinly, Lena A. Williams, Samuel C. Williams, all
by blood, and Annie Benight and Delibi Johnson as intermarried
citizens. (Certified copy hereto attached, marked " Exhibit A.")
October 24, 1808. Case appealed to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and jiidgment of the United States court, Indian Ter-
ritory, affirmed. (Keported in 174 U. S. in the consolidated case of
Stephens r. Cherokee Nation.)
December 17, 1902. Judgment of the United States court vacated
by decree of the citizenship court in test case.
March 9, 1903. Record before United States court transmitted to
citizenship court.
Counsel for claimants offered in evidence the record before the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes in 1896 and the record be-
fore the United States court. This evidence was rejected by the
citizenship court, the opinion stating:
The evidence submitted to the commission were certain exparte nffldavlts
talcen after the 10th day of June, ixm, and the parties then making them are
not shown to have been dead or l)eyond the jurisdiction of said comndssioners
when said exparte afiidavits were talicn and offered In evidem»e. Before the
L'nlte<l States c*ourt below they were also offered, as well as certain depositions
taken in 1897 for the i)urpose of beiniic «o offered as evidence, and they were so
offered.
It is plain, therefore, that none of them are comi)etent evidence before us.
The court, in its opinion, refers to additional evidence taken before
that court by the claimants, but the record fails to disclose such
testimony.
April 18, 1904. Decree entered denying all claimants enrollment
as citizens of the Choctaw Nation.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that each of the per-
sons admitted by judgment of the United States court is entitled to
enrollment. They are as follows: Richard S. Benight, Luther Be-
night, Winn Benight, Dora Jeff Benight, Sarah D. Brogdon, Wesley
H. Brogdon, Jodie J. Brogdon, Allamenta Brogdon, Ruby Brogdon,
Hazv Ann F. Vandergriff, Amanda I. Vandergriff, James M. Vander-
grirf, William P. Vandergriff, Emma L. Vandergriff, Annie C. Van-
dergriff, Davey D. Vandergriff, Sarah McClarty, James C. Johnson,
580 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Elton E. McClarty, Burr McClarty. James C. McClarty, S. Ann
Stonecipher, James B. Stonecipher, Essie May Stonecipner, Bessie
Berthan Stonecipher, Roscoe Stonecipher, Dortus Parisn, Nellie T.
Parish, Milus Johnson, Atrus Johnson, Alvin Johnson, William C.
Johnson, Jessie B. Johnson, Escoe Johnson, Addie May Johnson,
Laura C. McKinly,' Samuel M. McKinly, Josephine C. McKinly. John
Leo McKinly, Lena A. Williams, Samuel C. Williams, Annie Benight,
and Delila Johnson.
A\^ the following minor children, for whose enrollment applica-
tion was made within the time required by law :
May 24, 1900. Teenle M. Bennlght child of Richard S. Bennight.
January 17, 1902. HUdreth Vandergrlt
June 1, 1906. Carl R. Vandergrlt children of WllUam P. Vandergrlf.
June 11, 1906. Rorena Vandergrif. child of James M. Vandergrif.
June 18, 1906. Annie Myrtle Manly, child of Emma L. Vandergrif, now
Manly.
February 17, 1902. Kully Brake,
May 12, 1906. Marvin T. Brake, children of Amanda I. Brake.
October 8. 1900. Ida Bolln Mcl^rty,
July 12, 1906. Nancy F. McLarty, Thursey McLarty, chlldr^i of Sarah
McLarty.
June 7, 1900. L. C. Stonecipher,
February 21, 1902. Oto Stonecipher, children of Samantha A. Stonecipher.
August 9, 1899. Nannie B. Parish,
August 27, 1901. Ethel May Partsh, children of Dorthus (Dortus) Parish.
August 9, 1899. Fannie L. Johnson,
February 11, 1902. Eulalle Johnson, children of Mllus Johnson.
August 9, 1899. Amma D. Thomas,
January 9, 1902. Edna l^ee Thomas, children of Artus Thompson.
January 9, 1902. Virgle Benton Johnson, child of Alvln Johnson.
June 1, 1899. Agnes Messersmith,
April 26, 1902. Robert Jackson Vanderslice, children of Laura C. Vander-
sllce, formerly McKlnley.
June 1, 1899. Addle May Johnson, child of James C. Johnson.
Exhibit attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee and W. S. Field.
copy of ordeb of court.
United States of America,
Indian Territory, central district, ss:
In the United States court In the Indian Territory, central district, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, In the Indian Territory, on
the 11th day of September, A, D. 1897.
Present : The Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of said court
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
Jas. J. Bennight et al. v. Choctaw Nation. No. 62, Judgment
Be It remembered that on this 11th day of September, 1897, it being one of
the days of the regular April, A. D. 1897, term of this court came on for
hearing the matter of the petition of James J. Bennight et al., for enrollm^t
as members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians, both the petitioners and the
Choctaw Nation appearing by their respective attorneys and announce ready
for trial. And the cour,t ha^ing heard the testimony and the arpj»^«t^^f
counsel, and being well and fully advised in the premises doth fiwd thnt the
Slaners Richard S. Bennight, Luther Bennight, Winn Bennight Dora Jeff
Sight Sarah D. Brogdon, Wesley H. Brogdon, Jodie J. Brogdon Allamentt
Brogdon, Ruby Brogdon, Hazy Ann F. Vandergriff, Amanda I- Vandergnff.
James M. Vandergrlflf, William P. Vandergriff, Emma L. Vandergriff, Annie G.
vSr^lff, Davey D. Vandergriff, Sarah McClarty, Elton B. McClarty. Burr
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 581
McClarton, James C. JohnsoD, S. Ann Stonecipher, James B. Stoneclpher. Essie
May Stonecipher, Bessie Berthan Stoneciptier, Roscoe Stoneclplier, Dortus
Parish, Nellie T. Parish, Milus Johnson, Atrus Johnson, Alvin Johnson, William
C. Johnson, Jessie B. Johnson, Escoe Johnson, Addle May Johnson, Laura C.
McKinly, Samuel M. McKinly, Josephine C. McKlnly, John Leo McKlnly. I^na
A. Williams, Samuel C. Williams, are Choctaw Indians by blood, and that the peti-
tioners Annie Bennight and Delila Johnson are white persons married according
to the CJhoctaw laws; and that all of the above-named applicants are citizens of
the Choctaw Nation and are entitled to all the rights, privileges, immunities, and
benefits and be enrolled as such citizens and doth therefore reverse the judgmait
of the Dawes Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, and doth order and adjudge
that the names of the said applicants be so enrolled. And the clerk of this
court is hereby ordered and directed to send a certified copy of this judgment
to the aforesaid commission, and the same shall be a mandate to the said
commission to place the names of the aforesaid applicants upon the proper roll
already made or to be made of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians. And it is
ordered and adjudged that the aforesaid applicants have and recover of the
Choctaw Nation all their costs in their behalf expended, for which let execu-
tion issue.
The court doth further find that Susan S. Bennight, Jesse I>. Bennight,
Millard Bennight, and Eva G. Bennight are Choctaw Indians by blood, but that
they were not residents of the Choctaw Nation at the time of the institution of
this suit, and their application is therefore denied. The court doth further
find that James J. Bennight. William Vandergriff, Harvey E. McClarty, James
M. Brogdon, R. B. Stonecipher, and Robert T. Parish are white persons and
not married according to the laws of the Choctaw Nation, and their application
is therefore denied, and the Judgment of the aforesaid commission Is hereby
afiSrmed. It Is further ordered and adjudged that the Choctaw Nation have
and recover from the last-named applicants all Its costs In this behalf laid out
and expended, for which let execution issue.
United States of Amebica,
Indian Territory, central district, sa:
I, E. J. Fannin, cleric of the district court of the United States for the central
district of the Indian Territory, do hei-eby certify the foregoing to be a true copy
of an order made by said court on the 11th day of September, 1897, as appears
from the records of said court now on file in my ofllce.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, at my ofllce in South
McAlester, In said district, this 10th day of March, A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.l « E. J. Fannin, Clerk,
By I. M. Dodge, Deputy.
This is to certify that I am the oflScer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and
Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said tribes, and
that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certified copy of the
Judgment of the court, dated September 11, 1897, on file In this oflftce In the
matter of the petition of James J. Bennight et al. for enrollment as a member
of the Choctaw tribe of Indians.
J. Geo. Weight,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tnbes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in charge of Chovttnr Rrcordx.
Dated at Muskogee, Okla.. this 12th day of October, 1910.
Sarah Palmer et al., Chickasaws.
Dawes Commission, No. 147. United States court. No. 75-A. Citi-
zenship court, No. 39-T.
September 10, 1896. Original application filed for the enrollment
of Sarah Palmer and 29 others, all claiming to be members of the
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
582 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Chickasaw Nation by reason of (1) Chickasaw Indian blood and
descent, (2) continuous and uninterrupted residence in the nation,
(3) tribal affiliation and recognition. In their petition they allege
lineal descent from John and Mary Moseby, native Chickasaw Indians
in the old Chickasaw Nation in Mississippi; that Mary and John
Moseby were bom and continued to reside in said Chickasaw Nation,
Miss., until about 1887> when John died and Mary and her duldreo
removed to the Indian Territory and settled near Fort Smith in the
Choctaw Nation, and that they and their descendants, herein claim-
ants, have either continuously resided in the nation since said date or
were born in the nations and have continued to so reside. Sarah
Palmer, leading claimant herein, is a daughter of Mary and Jchn
Moseby. Claimants and others testify that they or their ancestors came
to the Choctaw Nation with what was known as the "William Wolf
gang''- of Chickasaws. Sarah Palmer stated upon oath that she had
always been told by her parents and by those who knew her that she
was a Chickasaw. John Squire Wolf testified that he knew Mrs.
Moseby and her family; that they came to the Choctaw Nation when
he did: that they drew "rations and cattle and supplies with the
Chickasaws,'' and that they were, to the best of his knowledge and
belief, Chickasaws.
David Colbert testified that Sarah Palmer was a daughter of Mr>.
Moseby, who came to the Choctaw country with the ** James Wolf
squad ''; that " they drew rations and supplies with the Chickasaws;
also di-ew cattle with the Chickasaws at Fort Coffee "; he states upon
his best information and belief that they were Chickasaws; that thoy
had always been recognized as such by the Choctaws and Chickasaws.
Sophia Trentham, a niece of Sarah Palmer and granddaughter of
Mary Moseby, testified that she had always been taught by her
parents that she was part Chickasaw, deriving her blood from her
grandmother, Mary Moseby; that the family tradition and history
was correctly stated in the application. ^
A number of affidavits accompany the petition, to the same effect.
November 23, 1896. The commisvSion rendered its decision in words
and figures as follows: "Denied."
Case appealed to United States court, southern district, sitting at
Ardmore; Dawes Commission record transmitted to court, testimony
taken before Jdin Hinkle, master in chancery. Witnesses examined
on behalf of claimants by counsel for nations. No testimony offei-cd
by nations.
* NovemlxT 15, 1898. A judgment was entered admitting the follow-
ing persons to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation: Sarah Palmer,
Sophia Trentham, Adolphus Trentham, Joseph Trentham (name on
final roll), Ella Worsham, Jeff Worsham, Sophia Worsham, Ella
Worsham, Julia Worsham, Jessie Worsham, Audrey Worsham, Josie
Worsham, John Worsham, Harry Worsham, Sadie Palmer, Earl
Palmer, Delia Palmer, Alice Palmer, Charles Palmer, Preston Lloyd,
Charles Lloyd, Nettie Thompson, Alice Thompson, May Thompson,
Herbert Thompson, Bertha Thompson, Frederick Perry, Bes-^ie
Worsham, and Thomas Worsham. Certified copy hereto attached,
marked " Exhibit A."
Appeal taken by nation to United States Supreme Court, which
court affirmed the judgment of the United States district court.
(See Stephens y. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S.)
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
PIVB CIVILIZED TBIBE8 IN OKLAHOMA. 583
December 17, 1902. Above decree set aside by decree of citizenship
court in " test case."
March 9, 1903. Case certified to citizenship court for trial de novo.
Record before United States court and commission transmitted.
Additional evidence offered by claimants. Many witnesses examined
and cross-examined by counsel for nation. No evidence offered by
nation.
October term, 1904. Opinion by Foote, associate judge, holding
that the claimants had failed to submit evidence entitling them to
enrollment.
November 28, 1904. Decree entered denying all claimants admis-
sion to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation, except Joseph Trentham^
who was admitted as an intermarried citizen, be having previously
married a Chickasaw woman whose rights were admitted by the
tribal authorities.
Subsequently application was made to the commission for the en-
rollment of Jfemah Henson and Ruby Henson, children of Sadie
Henson (nee Palmer) whose claim was subsecjuently adversely acted
upon by the citizenship court. The applications for the enrollment
oi these children was stamped " enrolled."
May 29, 1902. Applications were made to the commission within
the time prescribed by law for the enrollment of Archie C. and Mary
Edith Perry, children of Frederick Perry ; and subsequently applica-
tions were made within the time prescribed by law for the enroll-
ment of Ethel and Stella Thompson, children of Nettie Thompson.
Applications were also submitted to the commission within the
time prescribed by law for the enrollment of Rosie McNutt, child
of Sophia McNutt (n^e Palmer), Raymond Worsham, child of Julia
Worsham, and Edith Thompson, child of Nettie Thompson.
Decisions were rendered by the commission during the years 1905
and 1906 denying the applications for the enrollment of the above
children, because their parents had been denied enrollment by the
citizenship court.
(Copv of the decisions of the commission denying the Henson chil-
dren is hereto attached, marked " Exhibit B.")
The decisions of the commission in the cases of these children were
approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
There is nothing in the record of this case that disproves or tends
to disprove any of the allegations of the claimants with referen(!e to
their Chickasaw Indian blood, descent, residence in the nations,
their holding of property as Chickasaw Indians, and their long-con-
tinued residence. On these points the record is clear, notwithstand-
ing the decision of the citizenship court to the contrary. Counsel for
claimants therefore respectively submit that those persons admitted
by the United States court, which judginent admitting them was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, together with
their children, for whose enrollment applications were duly made
within the time prescribed by law to the commission, are legally and
equitably entitled to enrollment. They are:
Those admitted by judgment of the United States court: Sarah
Palmer (died Apr. 7, 1909), Sophia Trentham, Adolphus Trentham,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
684 FIVE CIVILIZED TKlBES IN OKLAHOMA^
Ella Worsham (now Burkelo), Jeff Worsham, Sophia Worsham
(now McNutt), Julia Worsham, Jessie Worsham (died Apr. 12,
1899), Audry Worsham, Josie Worsham, John Worsham, Harry
Worsham, Bessie Worsham, Thomas Worsham, Sadie Palmer (now
Henson, died Apr. 30, 1907), Earl Palmer, Delia Pahner (now Mel-
ton). Alice Palmer (now Dean), Preston Lloyd, Charles Lloyd,
Nettie Thompson, Alice Thompson (now Reily), May Thompson
(died Oct. 16, 1906), Herbert Thompson, Bertha Thompson, Fred-
erick Perry. i
Note. — No claim is made for the enrollment of Charles Palmer,
admitted by judgment of the United States court, but who died be-
fore September 25, 1902, the date fixed in the supplemental agreement
for the enrollment of all persons then living and entitled to enroll-
ment.
Children of above claimants, for whose enrollment application was
made to the commission within the time prescribed by law: Nemah
Henson, Ruby Henson, Archie Calvin Perry (died Oct. 30, 1902),
Mary Edith Perry, Rosie McNutt, Raymond Worsham, Edith
Thompson, Ethel Thompson, Stella Thompson.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Exhibit A.
United States of Amebica, Indian Territory y Southern District, 88 :
Id the United Stntes Court, In the Indian Territory, soutliem district, at a
term thereof begun and held at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory, on the 15th
day of November. A. D. 1897, and on the fifty-third day of said term, to wit, the
5th day of February, 1808. Present and presiding, the Hon. Hosea Townsend,
judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered on record, to wit :
Sarah Palmer et al. v. Chicalcsaw Nation. No. 75.
On this day this cause came on to be heard, and the court, after hearing the
evidence and being fully advised in the premises. Is of the opinion that the
following applicants are entitled to citizenship in the Chlckasjiw Nation and
that they have complied with the law in reference to prosecuting their claim
before the Dawes Commission and before this court: Sarah Palmer, Sophia
Trentham, Adolphus Trentham, Joseph Trentham, Ella Worsham, Jeff Worsham,
Sophia Worsham, Ella Worsham, Julia Worsham, Audry Worsham, Bessie
Worsham and Thos. Worsham, Julia Worsham, Jessie Worsham, Josie Worsham,
John Worsham and Harry Worsham, Sadie Palmer, Earl Palmer, Delia Palmer,
Alice Palmer, Chas. Palmer, Preston Uoyd, Chas. Lloyd, Nettie Thompson,
Alice Thompson, May Thompson, Herbert Thompson, and Bertha Thompson,
Frederick Perry.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that said applicants be. and they are
hereby, admitted to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation ;
And it is further adjudged and decreed that said application as to Sam
Worsham and Adolphus Worsham be denied, and they are hereby adjudged not
to be citizens of the Chickasaw Nation.
The above is a true copy from the record of an order made by said court on
the 5th dav of February, A. D. 1898. Witness my hand and official seal at
Ardmore, Iiid. T.. this 12th day of March, 1903.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell. Clerk.
N. H. McCoy, Deputy.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE OIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 585
This is to certlftr that I am the officer having custody of the records pertaining
to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw. Cherokee. Creek,
and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said tribes,
and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified copy
of order of court made on the 5th day of February, 1898. in the matter of thV
enrollment of Sarah Palmer et al. as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Chickasaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla., November 2, 1910,
Department of the Interior,
Commission to *the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Naamah Henson and
Ruby Henson as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
The applicants, Naamah Henson and Ruby Henson, claim the right to enroll-
ment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation through their mother, Sadie
Henson (n^ Palmer).
The right of the applicants* mother, Sadie Henson (as Sadie Palmer) to
citizenship In the Chickasaw Nation having been adversely determined by a
decree of the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court of November 28, 1904,
in case No. 30 upon the Tishomingo docket of said court, It Is hereby ordered
that the application for the enrollment of Naamah Henson and Ruby Henson
as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation be dismissed.
Commission to the B^e Civilized Tribes.
Tamb Bixby, Chairman,
Muskogee. Ind*. T., February 1, 1905, »
October 28. 1910.
State of Oklahoma. County of Carter, ss:
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally api)eare(l John Tldmore,
M. D., who makes the following aflSdavlt, to wit : That he is a practicing phy-
sician and that girl child was bom to W. A. and Sopha McNutt on the 3d day of
November, 1905. near Hewitt, Okla., and the said child was named Rossle
McNutt, and is now living.
John Tidmore. M. D.
Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 28th day of October. A. D. 1910.
[seal.] W. a. Darling,
Notary Public, Carter County, Okla,
My commission expires February 19. 1914.
Book No. — .
No. 15.
Office or C'ollfxtor of Permits.
Pickens County, Chickasaw Nation.
This is to certify that Luis Thomas has complied with the late permit law
and is registered accordingly as being G. A. Worsham, farmer, for months
from January 1. 1803.
B. W. Carter,
Permit Collector, Pickens County, C. N.
As a Farmer.
$5.00.
(Indorsed:) Jonas Wolfe, Governor, C. N.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
586 FIVE cmuzisD tribeb in Oklahoma.
T. D. Abnold et al.
1896, Chickasaw Case, No. 6. United States court case (southern dis-
trict), No. 13. Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court case
(Tishomingo docket), No. 32.
September 7, 1896. Original application made to the Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes, under the act of June 10, 1896, for citi-
zenship in the Chickasaw Nation of T. D. Arnold and 68 others,
whose names will appear hereafter.
The applicants alleged that all of the claimants were the descend-
ants of Susan Pistol, a half-blood Chickasaw, and David Pistol, and
that said Susan Pistol was the daughter of George Colbert; that
George Colbert was a full-blood Chickasaw Indian who resided on
what was known as Colberts Reserve in the State of Alabama. In
support of this application the applicants introduced the affidavits
of tne principal claimants identifying the members of the family and
the affidavit of Joshua Fowler that he knew Susan Colbert, the
daughter of Georee Colbert, in the State of Alabama, and that George
Colbert was a fuTl-blood Chickasaw Indian; he further stated that
he kjiew that Mary Pistol, daughter of Susan Pistol, married Willis
Arnold, and that Julia Fowler was a daughter of Susan Pistol and
David Pistol, and the mother of Mary E. Bratchcr, formerly Fowler.
The affidavit of Susan M. Nichols was introduced, who swore that she
was born in the old Chickasaw Nation, in the State of Mississippi,
and that she had often hear^ the Chickasaw and Choctaw Indians
speak of (Jeorge Colbert, who resided on Colberts Keserve, in the
State of Alabama, and that she had never heard him spoken of only
as a Chickasaw Indian. She further stated that she had that day seen
a printed copy of the treaty concluded between the Chickasaw Indians
and the United States on May 24, 1834, which was ratified July 31|
1834, and that in article 10 of said treaty the name of George Colbert
was recited as a member of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians.
The affidavit of Isaac Williams, who swore that he was 93 years
of age, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, and formerly resided in
what was known as Old Colberts Reserve in Alabama ; tnat he knew
David Pistol and his wife, Susan Pistol, and that the said Susan
Pistol was a daughter of George Colbert, a full-blood Chickasaw In-
dian, and that Susan Colbert was a half-blood Chickasaw Indian.
The answer filed by the Chickasaw Nation was supported by three
affidavits. One, of C. A. Burris, who stated that he came to the
Indian Territory with the Chickasaws in 1837; that he had held a
number of offices in the Chickasaw Nation; that he never heard of
the name of Pistol, or a woman of that name; that he was raised with
Pitman Colbert, who was the son of George Colbert, the only one he
ever knew in the State of Mississippi; he had no daughter by the
name of Susan; that if the said George Colbert had a. son-in-law by
the name of Pistol, or a daughter by the name of Susan, he would
have known it-
The affidavit of Peter Maytubbee was to the same effect. He made
oath to the effect that he came from Mississippi in 1837 with the
Chickasaws ; that he was acquainted with Pitman Colbert and George
Colbert ; that Pitman Colbert had a relative by the name of Susan,
who married Robert Jones; that said Susan was the only Susan Col-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 587
bert he ever heard of; that he never knew of a Chickasaw by the
name of Pistol.
The affidavit of H. F. Murray was to the effect that he had resided
in the Chickasaw Nation since 1870; in the Indian Territory since
1854; that he had been attorney general of the Chickasaw Nation,
district judge, county judge, delegate to Washington, and was inti-
mately acquainted with the affairs of the nation; was intimately ac-
quainted with the Colberts ever since they came to the Indian Terri-
tory; that he knew George Colbert, who fead a daughter by the name.
of Susan, and he knew ttiat he never had a daughter who married a
man by the name of Pistol.
Note. — Counsel desire to call attention that these affidavits refer to
the Colbert family of Mississippi; affiants say they came from the
State of Mississippi, whereas claimants came from the Colbert Re-
serve in the State of Alabama, and that it is therefore evident that
there were two separate and distinct families of Colberts living in
Mississippi and Alabama, respectively, during the thirties.
November 10, 1896. The commission denied this application.
The case was appealed to the United States court for the southern
district of the Indian Territory, Ardmore, which court, on —
Mard) 16, 1898. Reversed the judgment of the commission and
admitted the following persons to citizenship in the Chickasaw
Nation: T. D. Arnold, Martha Alice Clowdus, Luther Clowdus,
I-^ester Clowdus, Tommie Clowdus, Ruth Clowdus, W. I>. Arnold,
Earnest Arnold, Lee Arnold, Carroll Arnold, Ira Lee Arnold, Thomas
Svlvester Arnold, Ida Belle Lucas, George Walter Arnold, John
Hunter Arnold, Claud A. Arnold, Mary Elizabeth Bratcher, Mar- *
shall Bratcher, Andy Bratcher, Thomas Jefferson Bratcher, John
Harvey Bratcher, Freddie Bratcher, Eddie Bratcher, Stella
Bratclier, Viola Bratcher, Melvin Bratcher^ William Henrv
Bratcher, Delia Bratcher, May Bratcher, Finis Bratcher, Sarah
Hickerson, Cordova Hickerson, Willie Hickerson, Grace Hickerson^
T^e Bratcher, Glen Bratcher, Beulah Bratcher, Clyde Bratcher, Eh
Bratcher, Floyd Bratcher, Reuben Bratcher, Fannie Kennon, Ward
Kennon, Mary Elvira Kennon, Nancy Moore and her children, Joe
Moore, Wilhe Moore, Homer Moore, Isabella Fowler, Mary
Saphronia Fowler, Nocholas Marion Fowler, Edith Fowler, William
Fowler, Esther Fowler, W. A. Moss, T. H. Moss, J. C. Moss, all by
blood, and Mrs. Nancy T. Fowler, Mrs. Parale Arnold, G. H.
Bratcher, by intermarriage.
The judgment of the United States court sustained the judgment
of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes and denied the ap-
plications of the following persons: S. A. Clowdus, Elizabeth Ar-
nold, William Lucas, Dora Bratcher, Lydia Bratcher, William Silas
Hickerson, Maggie Bratcher, Lou Bratcher, Jennie Bratcher, Henry
Hope Kennoe ^Kennon). James M. Moore.
XoxE. — The judgment of the United States court admitting the
above-named persons was, as shown by subsequent testimony before
the commission, erroneous as to Lee Bratcher, Olen Bratcher, Beulah
Bratcher, and Clyde Bratcher, who had not, prior to June 28, 1898,
removed and in good faith settled in the nation. Their names
should not have been 'included in the judgment, and no claim for
them is made here.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
588 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBE6 IN OKLAHOMA.
The following is in brief the substance of the additional testimony
taken by a special master in the United States court :
Deposition of A. S. Persons : He stated that he lived in Alabama ; that about
54 or .55 years prior to that time he lived In the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T:;
that he resided in the State of Alabama all his life except about three years
he resided in the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T. ; that he lived, during his residence
in Alabama, in Colbert County, and knew George Colbert when he lived on
Colbert's Reserve, in which was formerly a part of Franklin County, but now
composes Colbert County; that he lived about a mile from the said George
Ooll)ert and knew him very well, and met him almost every day; that George
Colbert was a Chickasaw Indian and appeared to be a full-blood Indian; that
George Colbert had two daughters, one named Susan Colbert and one whoae
name he had forgotten.
Deposition of James Simpson: Stated that he lived in Alabama; had never
resided in the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T. ; he knew George Colbert
in Florence, Ala., he having stopi>ed at Simpson's father's house; he traded
a'^ the father's store and resided In the Indian Nation south of the Tenness^
River; George Colbert appeared to be. and was considered, a Chickasaw Indian,
and looked to be a full blood; did not know Susan Colbert.
A. Nichols, in his deposition, states that he was lK>m in the State of Alabama.
and while an infant his mother removed to Tennessee, right on the Mississippi
line in McNary County, where he resided about two years; then moved to
Mississippi to the old Chickasaw Nation; lived in said nation at Eastport about
five years; moved to Fort Smith, Ark., in 1853, resided there tiU 1863 and re-
moved to the Choctaw Nation ; had resided continuously in Choctaw and Chicka-
saw Nations since that time; that he knew George Coll)ert; first at Tuscumbla,
Ala., and often saw him in Eastport, Miss., and also often at his residence on
Colbert's Reserve, which was about 20 miles from Eastport; from his appear-
ance George Colbert was a full-blood Chickasaw Indian; he had several chil-
dren; one a daughter named Susan, who was the wife of David Piston, and
another, whose name was Molsle. He has known two George Colberts; the
, one he testified about in this case, and one whom he knew at Antlers in the
Choctaw Nation. When he knew George Colbert, Colbert was getting tolerably
old, but does not know how old he was; presumed he was dead, but did not
know when he died. He knew him to be a Chickasaw Indian from his appear-
ance; he did not speak plain English, and was recognized as a Chickasaw Indian
by all the Chlckasaws who knew him, among whom he resided as he was chief,
and took part in all their councils and in transaction of such business as they
had with the Government of the United States. Judge Murray's wife, Susan
Colbert, is not the one he was testifying about.
Deiwsitlon of William E. Haraway : He stated he was 81 years old and
lived in Florence, Ala., and had' resided in no other Sta es but Tennessee and
Alabama; he resided at Rogersville, In Lauderdale County, till al)Out 15 years
prior to that date; he knew George Coll)ert in Lauderdale County; lived on
the south side of the Tennessee River among the Indians, about 24 miles from
deponent's home; never met him but once; he api)eared to be a Chickasaw In-
dian, a full blood: did not know Susan Colbert; when he knew George Colbert
he was about middle-aged man. and it had been about 65 years since he saw
him; does not luiow how many children he had.
Deposition of Himady Williams: He was about 84 years old and resided near
Homer, Ind. T. ; lived In the Choctaw Nation at Boggy I>epot before the war:
was born In the State of Mississippi, and resided there till he came West with
the Indians, and has resided in Indian Territory ever since; never resided in
State of Alabama : knew George Colbert on the Tennessee River in the State
of Alabama, about 40 miles from where dei)onent lived : his master would visit
C<>lbert and take him with him ; sometimes he would stay a week at Colbert's,
but does not know how many times: a great number of times; Greorge Colbert
was a Chickasaw Indian, and appeared to be a full blood; does not know
whether George Colbert was ever married: knows he lived with a woman as
his wife and had children, as he beard them call him father; he knew two of
his daughters, Susan and Molsle. Susan married David Piston, a white man;
did not know how old George Colbert was. but he knew him from the time he
could remember till he came West; does not know how old Susan Colbert was.
but she was a grown woman; was not a negro, and her mother was not a
slave.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 589
W. H. Campbell, special master, to whom this case was referred,
in his report found from the evidence that George Colbert was a
full-blood Chickasaw Indian ; that Susan Pistol, through whom the
applicants claim was a half-blood Chickasaw Indian; that all the
applicants, except those who claim by intermarriage were the lineal
descendants of George Colbert, through his daughter, Susan Colbert,
and reconimended that those of the applicants who were residents of
the Indian Territory be enrolled as members of the Chickasaw Tribe
of Indians.
The judgment of the United States court in this case was vacated
by the decree of the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court of
December 17, 1902, in the " test case " of J. T. Riddle et al., r. The
Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations or Tribes of Indians, and the case
was certified to said Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court for
a trial de novo.
June 29, 1904. Decree of the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship
court denying the right to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation of
claimants herein.
Note. — No testimony was taken in the citizenship court, nor was
there any opinion rendered by said court, the attorneys for claim-
ants having moved to dismiss their case.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for claimants submit that the testimony in this case is
clear as to the descent of applicants herein from recognized Chicka-
saw Indians, who resided in the old Colbert Reserve in the State
of Alabama, and that the findings of the master in chancery and the
judgment or the United States court was correct, and that the parties
herein should have been enrolled as citizens of the Chickasaw Na-
tion, and are now entitled to such enrollment, except for the closing
of the tribal rolls by act of Congress.
Those entitled are : T. D. Arnold, Martha Alice Clowdus, Luther
Clowdus, Lester Clowdus, Tommie Clowdus, Ruth Clowdus, W. D.
Arnold, Earnest Arnold, Lee Arnold, Carrol Arnold, Ira Lee Arnold,
Thomas Sylvester Arnold, Ida Belle Lucas, George Walter Arnold,
John Hunter, Arnold, Claud A. Arnold, Mary Elizabeth Bratcher,
Marshall Bratcher. Andy Bratcher, Thomas Jefferson Bratcher, John
Harvey Bratcher, Freddie Bratcher, Eddie Bratcher, Stella Bratcher,
Viola Bratcher, Melvin Bratcher, William Henry Bratcher, Delia
Bratcher, May Bratcher, Finis Bratcher, Sarah Hickerson, Cordova
Hickerson, Willie Hickerson, Grace Hickerson. Eli Bratcher, Floyd
Bratcher, Reuben Bratcher, Fannie Kennon, Ward Kennon, Mary
Elvira Kennon, Nancy Moore and her children, Joe Moore, Willie
Moore, Homer Moore, Isabella Fowler, Marv Saphronia Fowler,
Nicholas Marion Fowler, Edith Fowler, William Fowler, Esther
Fowler, W. A. Moss, T. H. Moss, J. C. Moss (all by blood), and
Mrs. Nancy T. Fowler, Mrs. Parale Arnold, G. H. Bratcher (by
intermarriage) .
Newborns for whom application was made within the time pre-
scribed by law: Paul Clowdus, Elmer Rosevelt Clowdus, James E.
Arnold, Bertha Lucas, Burvian Lucas, Bula Lucas, Elsie Lucas,
Virgie Bratcher, Homer Moore, Jesse Newton Moore, Cora Belle
Bratcher, Dewey Bratcher, Paul Eva Bratcher, Willie May Bratcher,
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
590 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBE8 IN OKLAHOMA.
Clara Purl. Bratcher, William R. Moss, Leona Margaret Moss. Wil-
liam Hope Kennon, Maggie Arnold, Charlie Arnolo, Eula Bratcher,
Andrew H. Hays, Errett Holt, Bertha Holt.
The following-named children for whom birth affidavits are here-
with submitted: Eoxie Pearl Moore, Ruben Bratcher, Clara Holt,
Roffie Holt, Annie Clara Moore.
Exhibits attached.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinoer & Le^.
AFTIDAVrr.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
J. M. Moore nnd Nancy A. Moore, who being each duly swoni, on oath state
that they are the identical Nancy A. Moore and J. M. Moore named In the
Chickasaw enrollment cape known as the T. D. Arnold case No. 6 of the Dawes
Commission records, and No. 13 of the United States court for the soutiiem
district, Indian Territory, and that they are the father and mother respectivelsr
of Annie Clara Moore, who was born March 29, 1896, and who is now livinp
with affiants; and that Annie Clara Moore's name was inadvertently omitted
from the application filed by affiants in 1896 with the Commission to the Ffre
Civilized Tribes nnd wps never afterwards Included th^ein by the commiaaioo
.or the courts; that said child, Annie Clara Moore, has continuously lived in
the Chickasaw Nation with affiants since said application was made and now
resides therein and is a full sister of Joe Moore, Willie Mocre. Homer Moore,
and Jesse Newton Moore, whose names have been included in all applications
made to the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes for enrollment as
Chickasaw Indians by blood.
J. M. Moobe;
Nancy A. Moore.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of November, 1910.
[SKAL.1 Eloda GiBaoN.
Xotary Public.
My commission expires May 18. 1913.
Depabtment of the Intebkw,
COMMISSIONEB OF THE FlVE CIVILIZED TrIBBH.
In re npplicatlou for allotment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Natkm of
.\ustin Thornton, born on the 22d day of February, 1905. Name of father,
James Andy Thornton, a non<*itizen of the nation. Name of mother, Isabelle
Thornton, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Post office. Ardmore, Okla.
AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Isabelle Thornton, on oath state that I am 36 years of age and a citizen
by blood of the Chickasaw Nation; that I am the lawful wife of James Andy
Thornton, who is a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation; that a male
child was born to me on 22d day of February, 1905; that said child has been
nnmed Austin Thornton and was living March 4, 1906.
Isabelle Thobnton.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1910.
fsEAL.l Eloda Gibson,
Notary Public,
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTENDING PHYBICIAN OB MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Nancy T. Fowler, a noncitizen, on oath state that I attended Mrs. Isabelle
Thornton, wife of James Andy Thornton, on the 22d day of February, 1905;
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TB»BS IN OKLAHOMA. 691
ttmt tliere was bom to ber on 8»iUl date' a male cbild; tbat said child was
living March 4, 1906, and it ia said to have l>een named Austin Thornton.
Nancy T. (her x mark) Fowleb.
Witnesses to raarli — ,
ISABELLE Thornton,
Leona Oox.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December. 1910.
[seal.] ELODA (ilBSON,
Notary Publiv,
DePABTMENT of the INTHRIOR,
COMMISSIONEB OF THE FiVE CIVILIZED TEIBES.
In re application for allotment as a citizen of the Cliickusaw Nation of
Roflie Holt, bom on the 26th day of Octobw. 1905. Name of father, Joseph
Holt, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Name of mother, America S. Holt, a
citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Post office, Mannsvllle.
affidavit of MOTHER.
State of Oklahoma, Johnson County:
I, America S. Holt, on oath state that I am 31 years of age and a citizen by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation; that I am the lawful wife o^ Joseph Holt, who
is a noncltlzen of the nation; that a female child was born to me on 26th day
of October, 1905; that said child has been named Roffle Holt, and was living
March 4, 1906.
America S. Holt.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of December, 1010.
[seal.] Eloda Gibson,
Xotary Public,
My commission expires May 18, 1913.
AFFIDAVIT of ATTENDING PHYSICIAN OB MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Nancy T. Fowler, a noncitiaen, on oath state that I attended Mrs. Amer-
ica S. Holt, wife of Joseph Holt, on the 26th day of October, 1905; that there
waB bom to her on said date a female child ; that said child was living March
4, 1906, and It Is sAId to have been nnmed Roffle Holt.
Nancy (her x mark) T. Fowler.
Witness to mark —
Leona Cox,
EiLODA Gibson.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.]' Eloda Gibson.
Xotary Public.
My commission expires May 18, 1913.
Depabtment of the Interior.
Commissioner of the Five Civilized Tbibes.
In re application for allotment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of Ottie
Kennon. born on the 21gt day of April, 1904. Name of father, H. H. Kennon.
a white man of the Ofaickaaaw Nation. Name of mother. Fannie Kennon, a
Chickasaw of the Chickasaw Nation. Post office. Bono, Tex.
affidavit of motheb.
Statb cw Texas, Johnson County:
I, Fannie Kennon, on oath state that I am 33 years of ajte and a Chickasaw
Indian by blood of the Chickasaw Nation ; that I am the lawful wife of H. H,
Kennon, who is a white man by blood of the Chickasaw Nation; that a girl
Digitized by V^OOQIC
592 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
chUd was born to me on 2l8t day of April, 1904 ; that said child has been
named Ottle Kennon, and was living March 4, 1906.
Fannie V. Kennon.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] L. B. Davis,
Notary Public.
My commission expires in June, 1911.
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I. , a physician, on oath state that I attended Mrs. Fannie Kennon.
wife of H. H. Kennon, on the 21st day of Aprtl, 1904; that there was bom
to her on said date a female child; that said child^was living March 4, 1906,
and is said to have been named Ottie Kennon.
C. F. Sullivan, M. D.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] Eloda Gibson,
Notary Public,
Department of twe Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In re application for allotment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of New-
ton Thornton, bom on the 20th day of January, 1903. Name of father, James
Andy Thornton, a noncltizen of the nation. Name of mother, Isabelle Thorn-
ton, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Post oflSce, Ardmore, Okla.
affidavit of mother.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Isabelle Thornton, on oath state that I am 36 years of age and a citizen by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation ; that I am the lawful wife of J. A. Thornton,
who is a noncltizen of the nation; that a male child was bom to me on 20th
day of January, 1903; that said child has been named Newton Thornton and
was living March 4, 1906.
ISABELiJE Thornton;
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] Eloda Gibson, Notary Public,
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Nancy T. Fowler, a noncltizen, on oath state that I attended Mrs. Isabelle
Thomton, wife of James Andy Thornton, on the 20th day of January, 190»^;
that there was bom to her on said date a male child ; that said child was living
March 4, 1906, and it is said to have been named Newton Thomton.
Nancy T. (her x mark) Fowler.
Witnesses to mark —
ISABELL Thornton.
Leona Cox.
Subscribed and sin^rn to before me this 9th day of December, 1910.
[seal.] Eloda Gibson, Notary Public.
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In re application for allotment as a Chickasaw citizen of the Chickasaw
Nation of Clara Holt, bom on tlie 4th day of July, 1903. Name of father,
Joseph Holt, a noncltizen of the nation. Name of mother, Am^lca S. Holt, a
'Citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Post office, Mannsville.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA, 5^93
AJTFIDAVIT OF MOTOEB.
State of Oklahoma, Johnson County:
I, America Saphrona Holt, on oath state that I am 31 years of age and a
citizen by blood of the Cliickasaw Nation ; that I am the lawful wife of Joseph
Holt, who is a noncitizen of the nation ; that a female child waa bom to me
on 4th day of July, 1903; that said child has been named Clara Holt, and was
UviB« March 4, 1906.
Ambbica S. Holt.
Sub8cifib€id and sworn to before me this 1st day of December. 1910.
[seal.] Eloda Gibson, Notary Public,
My commission expires May 18, 1913.
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN OB MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Nancy T. Fowler, a midwife, on oath state that I attended Mrs. America S.
Holt, wife of Joseph Holt, on the 4th day of July, 1903 ; that there was bom to
her on said date a female child; that said child was living March 4, 1906, and
it is said to have been named Clara Holt.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of December, 1910.
[seal.] Eloda Gibson, Notary Public.
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In re application for allotment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of
Koxie Pearl Moore, born on the .5th day of January, 1904. Name of father,
J. M. Moore, a noncitizen of the nation. Name of mother, Nancy A. Moore, a
citizen of the Chickasaw Nation.
AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Nancy A. Moore, on oath state that I am 42 years of age and a citizen by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation ; that I am the lawful wife of J. M. Moore, who
is a noncitizen of the nation ; that a female child was bom to me on 5th day qf
January, 1904; that said child has been named Roxie Pearl Moore, and was
living March 4, 1906.
Nancy A. MooR^*
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of November, 1^0*
[SEAL.] Eloda Gibson, Notarp Fublio^
My commission expires May 18, 1913.
AFFIDAVIT of ATTENDING PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Walter Hardy, a physician, on oath state that I attended Mrs. Nancy A.
Moore, wife of J. M. Moore, on the 5th day of January, 1904; that there was
bom to her on said date a female child; that said child was living March 4,
1906, and is said to have been named Roxie Pearl Moore.
Walter Hardy.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2&th day of Noveml)er, liBlO-
[SEAJ..1 Eum>a Gibson, Notary Fubttc.
My commission expires May 18, 1913.
Department of the Interior,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes*
In re application for allotment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of
Ruben Bratcher, born on the Isi day of Septeml>er, 1904. Name of father,
60282-13 38 ,.g,^^, ^^ ^OOglC
594 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Marshall Bratcher. a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. Name of mother,
Manda Bratcher, a noncitizen of the nation. Post office, Ardmore.
/ AFFIDAVIT OF MOTHER.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, Manda Bratcher, on oath state that I am 30 years of age and a non-
citizen; that I am the hiwful wife of Marshall Bratcher, who is a dtisen
by blood of the Chickasaw Nation: that a male child was bom to me on
the 1st day of September, 1904; tliat said child lias l>een named Ruben
Bratcher, and was living March 4. 1906.
Manda (her x mark) Bbatcher.
Witnesses to mark —
M. P. Horton.
M. H. Bratcher.
{Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of Deceml>er, 1910.
• [seal.] C. E. Maddox.
Justice of the Peace,
I..
affidavit of attending physician or midwife.
State of Oklahoma, County:
I, Mrs. Leander Gray, a noncitizen midwife, on oath state that I attended
Mrs. Manda Bratcher. wife of Marshall Bratcher. on the 1st day of September,
1904 ; that there was born to her on said date a boy child ; that said child was
living March 4, 1906, and Is said to have been named Ruben Bratcher.
Mrs. Leander Gray.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] Frank S. Wolverton.
Notary Public,
My commission expires March IS, 1914.
Department of the Interior,
^ Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Lenora Arnold as a
citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
The applicant, Lenora Arnold, claims her right to enrollment as a citizen by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation through her father, George W. Arnold. The
right of the applicant's father. George W. Arnold, to citizenship in the Cliicka-
saw Nation having been adversely determined by a decree of the Choctaw and
Chickasaw citizenship court June 29, 1904, in case No. 32 upon the Tishomiiun>
docket of said court, it is hereby ordered that the application of Loiora Arnold
for enrollment as a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation be dismissed.
Commission to the Fivb Civilized Tribes,
Tams Bixby, Chairman.
Muskogee, Ind. T., September 10, 1904-
affidavit of attending physican or midwife.
State of Oklahoma, Carter County:
I, L. D. Gillespie, a physician, on oath state that I attended Mrs. America S.
Holt, wife of J. S. Holt, on the 26th day of October, 1906 ; that there was bom
to her on said date a female child ; that said child was living March 4, 1906,
and is said to liave been named Roffie.
L. D. GiLLESPIK.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 1910.
[SEAL.] C. H. EsKEW, Notary Puhlia.
My commission expires December 10, 1910.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 595
No. 21.
W. R. Sessums et al., Choctaws.
Dflwes Commission, No. 452. United States court, McAlester, No.
10. Citizensiiip court, McAlester, No. 30.
September 8, 1896. Application filed with the commission for the
enrollment of W. R. Sessums and 42 others as Choctaws by blood.
Petition alleges that W. R. Sessums is the son of Redding Sessimis,
who was the son of Penny Fisher, a full-blood Choctaw Indian
woman. All of claimants are lineal descendants of Penny Fisher
and her son, Redding Sessums, who were bom and lived in the old
Choctaw Nation, Miss. All of claimants settled in the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations prior to 1893, and have since settlement con-
tinuously resided therein. The Indian blood and descent of the
applicants from Penny Fisher and Redding Sessums is fully estab-
lished by the testimony of Mary Ann Smith, a former Indian slave:
Mitchell Nelson, an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation ; S. P^
Perry, a Choctaw slave; and Ed McGee; who all resided, in 1830, in
the Choctaw Nation, Miss., and knew Penny Fisher and Redding
Sessums. The testimony of a number of witnesses as to the descent
of the claimants from said ancestors appears of record.
December 2, 1896. The Dawes Commission rendered a decision in
words and figures as follows : "Application denied."
Case appealed to United States court. South McAlester, Ind. T.
Records of Dawes Conmiission transmitted to court Courthouse
burned and records destroyed. Copy of duplicate in Dawes Commis-
sion submitted.
October 30, 1898. Master submitted following report :
In the United States Court in the Indian Territory, Central Judicial District,
at South McAlester.
W. R. Sessums et al., plaintiffs, v. The Choctaw Nation, defendant.
REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER IN CHANCERY.
To the Hon. W. H. H. Clayton, Judge of said Court:
Having been appointed special master to examine the evidence and report
the facts in the above cause, I respectfully submit :
That I find from the evidence tliat W. R. Sessums is one-quarter-blood (vhoe-
taw Indian and is a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and that said W. R.
Sessnms's children, J. F. Sessums, Mary Sessums Bailey, W. R. Sessums, jr.,
Sarah Sessums Swagger, R. L. A. Sessums, H. D. Sessums, Mattie Sessums.
and B. R. Sessums all reside in the Choctaw Nation and are applicants, together
with their children.
I find that A. B. Sessums. J. R. Sessums, Buchanan Sessums, M. E. Sessums,
Harrison Sessums, and Martha Sessums Flemming, are brothers and sister and
one-eighth Choctaw Indians, and are residents of the Choctaw Nation, and
are the children of William Sessums, who is dead. They and their children are
applicants.
I find that the above-named plaintiffs, W. R. Sessums and William Sessums,
deceased, are grandsons of a Mississippi Choctaw full-blood woman named
Penny Fisher, being the sons of Redding Sessums, who the evidence shows to be
the son of the said Penny Fisher by her white husband, Jacob Sessums. That
Penny Fisher died In Mississippi about 1845. The defendant submitted no evi-
dence in this case.
Respectfully submitted on this day of August, 1897.
Fee $3 paid by plaintiffs.
F. N. Foster, Special^asi^r.
Digitized by v^jOOv IC
January 20, 1898. A decree was ^tered admitting the following
persons : W. R. Sessums, J. F. Sessums, Mary Bailey, W. R. Sessums,
jr., Sarah Swagger, H. D. Sessums, R. L. A, Sessums, Mattie Sessums
B. R. Sessums, Maud Sessums, Rosa Ann Sessums, Myrtle Sessums.
Mary Sessums, Ethie Sessams^ Daniel Sessums, Emftnuel Bailey
F. A. Bailey, W. A. Bail«y, Minnie Bailey, Mary Alice Bailey, Mary
J. Sessums, Sallie Sessums, W. F. Sessums, B. R. Sessums, A. B.
Sessums, George A. Sessums, Ervil Sessums, Mary E. Harrison,
W. A. Harrison, Eva Harrison, EJddie Harrison, Jeffie Harrison^
Martha Fiemming, Joseph Flemming, Newton PlemmiBg, William
Flemming, and Jesse Flemming* (Oertified copy hereto attached.)
December 17, 19€Q. Decree of United States court vacated by
decree of citizenship court in test case.
March 9, 1903. Case transmitted to citizen^ip court for trial
de novo.
W. R. Sessums, who had made a deposition filed with the cx)m-
mission and the court, was examined by counsel for the nations and
also one Harrison. Other witnesses who testified for claimants in
the United States court and before the Dawes Commission were
tendered by counsel for claimants to counsel for the nations for
examination. The witnesses, Mar^ Ann Smith, MitcheU Nelson,
and Ed McGree, who had known claimants' ance^ors in the Choctaw
Nation east of the Mississippi and who had testified before the com-
mission and the court; w«re dead; onhr one remains — S. P. Perry.
The copies of the depositions of Mary Ann Smith, Mitchell Nelson,
and Ed McG«e, furnished by the Dawes Commission after the
originals were burned in the courthouse at McAlester, were dis-
caraed by the court and were not considered as competent evidence.
An additional reason was assigned by the court for discarding the
deposition of Ed McGee upon the ground that it was t^ken in a
proceeding before the United States court, and service was made
therein upon the Choctaw Nation only and not upon the Choctaw
and ChicJkasaw Nations. A similar reason was assigned for re-
jecting the df^osition of S. P. Perry, who testified for elaimants in
the United States court. None of these depositions were accepted
in evidence. The ruling of the court on the admissibility of these
depositions in evidence was deferred- until final hearing, and there-
fore claimants had no oi>portunity to take the testimony of S^ P.
Perry before the citizenship court.
In*^ concluding its opinion the court says:
Daring the period between 1882 and 1889 the Choctaw Indians were removing
from their old domain in MisslsslpiU to their new ixMweBsions in the Indian
Territory. Redding Sessums did not come with them. On the contrary. h»
went directly from Mississippi to Texas, and remained there nntil he died in
1883, and none of his descendants came to the Indian Territory until nftei' his
death. It seems to me that it is reasonable to suppose, If Redding Sessums
was a half-bred Choctaw Indian, as is claimed in this case, that there would
have been offered some proof, at least, tending to show that he claimed his
identity as such, and that he would have made some effort during the 83 yenr«
of his life to establish that fact, but so far as the testimony in this case extends
It is apparent that he never did so. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
The record in this case is clear that the claimants are descended
from Penny Fisher, a full-blood Choctaw woman, and her son*
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 597
Redding Sessums, a half breed, who lived east of the Mississippi
River in the old Choctaw Nation; that all of them were admitted
by jiidgmwit of the United States court, and have continuously re-
sided in the Choctaw Nation since on or before the year 1898, and
still reside therein. Counsel therefore submit that these persons
should be enrolled. Thev are as follows. Persons included in judg-
ment of United States court January 20, 1898: W. R. Sessums, J. F.
Sessums, Mary Bailey, W. R. Sessums, jr., Sarah Swagger, H. D.
Sessums, R. L. A. Sessums, Mattie Sessums, B. R. Sessums, Maud
Sessums, Rosa Ann Sessums Myrtle Sessums, Mary Sessums, Ethie
Sessums, Daniel Sessums, Emanuel Sessums, F. A. Bailey, W. A.
Bailev, Minnie Bailey, Mary Alice Bailey, Mary J. Sessums, Sallie
Sessums, W. P. Sessums, B.^ R. Sessums, A. B. Sessums, George A.
Sessums, Ervil Sessums^ Mary E. Harrison, W. A. Harrison Eva
Harrison, Eddie Harrison, Jeffie Harrison, Martha Fiemming, Joseph
FlemminjE^^ Newton Flemming, William Flemming, Jesse Flemmin^.
Following children of above persons^ for whose enrollment appli-
cation was duly made to the commission and who were denied by
decision of commissKm May 8, 1906, because their parents had been
denied by the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court: Ruth HaBel
Harrison, Charlie L. Sessums, Jacob C. Sessums, Mamie G. Fleming,
Lizzie V. Fleming, Homer B. Bailey, James Henry Ramsey, Mary D.
Bratcher, Bessie E. Bratcher, Elbirtra Bratcher. (Official oopv of
decision of commission hereto attached and marked " Exhibit B. )
(Forty-seven in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Balltnobh & Lee,
Attorneys for Claimants.
COPY OF OBDEB OF COURT.
United BtaTEs or Amtchica, Indian Tf*rritory, Ventral District, as:
In the United States Court iu the Indian Territory, Centml District, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAlester, In the Indian Territory, on
the 20th day of January, A. D. 1898.
Present : The Hon. William H. H. Clayton, judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
W. R. Sessums et al. r. Choctaw Nation. No. 10. Dawes Commission, Xo. 452.
jrDGMFJ»fT.
This cause came on to be heard on this the 20th day of January. A. D. 1808.
in open court, whereupon the plaintiffs and defendant announced ready for
trial, and the court having heard the evidence In the case, the argmnent of
counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, doth find that the plaintifTs,
W. R. Sessums, J. F. Sessums, Mary Bailey, W. R. Sessums, Jr.. Sarah Swagger,
H. D. Sessums, R. L. A. Sessums, Ma tile Sessums, B. R. Sessums, Maud Sessums,
Rosa Ann Sessums, Myrtle Sessums, Mary Sessums, Etie Sessums, Daniei Sessums,
Emanuel Bailey, F. A. Bailey, W. A. Bailey, Minnie Bailey, May Alice Bailey,
Mary J. Sessums, Sallie Sessums, W. F. Sessums. B. R. Sessums. A. B. Ses-
sums. Geo. A. Sessums, Ervil Sessums, Mary E. Harrison, Eva Harrison,
Eddie Harrison, Jeffie Harrison, Martlia Fleming. Jo8ei>h teeming. Newton
Fleming, Wm. Fleming, and Jessie Fleming, and W. A. Harrison are all mem-
bers and citizens of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians by blood, and
as such are entitled to all the rights, privileges. Immunities, and benefits
of citizens and members by blood of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians.
igi ize y g
598 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The court further finds that J. R. Sessunis, W. A. Sessums, Eva Sessums,
Thomas M. Sesnums, Juna L. Sessums, Mary A. Sessnins, Buchanan Sessums
are not residents of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation, are not entitled to the
rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits of Choctaw Indians and members
of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiffs, W. R. Ses-
sums, J. F. Sessums, Mary Bailey, W. R. Sessums, jr., Sarah Swager, H. D.
Sessums, R. L. A. Sessums. Mattie Sessums, B. R. Sessums, Maud Sessums,
Rosa Ann Sessums, Myrtle Sessums, Mary Sessums, Ethie Sessums, D.-iulel
Sessums. Emanuel Bailey. F. A. Bailey, Minnie Bailey, Mary Alice Bailey,
Mary J. Sessums, Sallie Sessums, W. F. Sessums, B. R. Sessums, A. B. Ses-
sums. George A. Sessums, Ervll Sessums, Mary E. Harrison, W. A. Harrison.
Eva Harrison, lOddle Harrison, Jeffie Harrison. Martha Fleming. Joseph Flem-
ing, Newton Fleming, William Fleming, and Jesse Fleming, all and each of
them be admitted to and granted all the rights, privileges. Immunities, and
l>enefits of citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians;
that each of their names be placed upon the legal roll of citizens by blood of
the Choctaw Nation and Tribe of Indians by the Commission to the Five
(Civilized Tribes, and that the clerlt of this court transmit to said commission
a certified copy of the judgment In this case, and that the plaintiffs herein
have and recover of and from the defendant all their costs laid out and ex-
l>ended herein, for all of which let execution issue.
And it is further by the court considered, adjudged, and decreed that the
aforementioneii J. R. Sessums. W. A. Sessums. Eva Sessimis, Thomas M. Ses-
sums, Juna I^. Sessums. Mary A. Sessums. and Buckhanan Sessums take nothing
by their suit; tliat their names be excluded from the rolls of Choctaw citizens
prepared or to be prepared by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes ; and
that said Choctaw Nation have and recover of the said parties all Its costs in
this action as to them expended.
TTnited States of Amebica, Indian Territot-y, Central District, ss:
1, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the District Court of the X'nited States for the
Central District of the Indian Territory, do hereby <?ertlfy the foregoing to t^e
a true copy of an order made by said court on the 20th of January, 189S. as
appears from the records of said court now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, at my office In South
McAlester, in said district, this 1st day of February. A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] E. J. Fannin, Clerk.
Department or the Intebior.
Commissioner to the Five Civilised Tribes.
In the matter of the petition for the enrollment of Wilson R. Sessums et aL
as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
On January 27, 1006, there was filed with the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes by Tom D. McKeown. attorney for the i>etitioners, petitions for
Uie enrollment of the following persons as citizens of the Choctaw Nation:
Wilson R. Sessums; Wilson R. Sessums. jr., his two minor children. Sealy
Caroline Sessums and Willie F. Sessums; Mary E. Harrison; Walter A. Harri-
son and bis minor child, Ru'h Hazel Harrison; Mary Bailey and her two minor
children, William A. Bailey and Minnie May Bailey.
On February 0, 1906, Tom D, McKeown. attorney for the petitioners, filed with
the commissioner petitions for the enrollment of the following persons as citi-
zens of the Choctaw Nation : John F. Sessums. his wife, Mary E. Sessums, and
their minor children. Lula M., Carrie E., William D., Charlie L.. and Jacob C.
Sessums: Jesse Fleming (now Jesse Arms) : Martha Fleming and her minor
children. Mamie O. and TJzzie V. Fleming: Emanuel W. Bailey and her minor
children. Homer B. and Hester E. Bailey; Newton Fleming and his minor child,
Lois Fleming: Rosa A. Ramsey and her minor child, James Ramsey: Mary A.
Bailey (now Bratcher) ; Minnie M. Hill and her minor children, Joseph F.,
Dorothy E., and William A. Hill: Myrtle Sessums (now Moore) and her minor
chlldreii. Mattie E., and Rosa V. Moore; Eva May Harrison (now Clayton)
and her minor child, Mable Thelma Clayton: Eflie A. Batcher and her minor
children, Mary D. Bratcher. Bessie Bratcher. Elberta Bratcher, Nellie A.
Bratcher, and Walter L. Bratcher.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVB CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 599
These petitions have been consolidated and will be considered as one case;
inasmuch as the alleged rights of the petitioners to enrollment are derived from
the same source.
The petitions allege that the petitioners are the descendants of Pennie Sea-
sums (n#e Fisher), who, it is claimed, was a full-blood Choctaw Indian, and
was duly enrolled and recognized as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. The
petitioners claim descent from said Pennie Sessums (n6e Fisher) through
Redding Sessums and William Sessums.
No answer to the petition has been filed by the attorneys for the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations within the 15 days allowed for that purpose by the regula-
tions adopted by the commissioner January 2, 1906.
The records of this oflSce show that the petitioners, Wilson R. Sessums (under
the name of W. R. Sessums), Wilson R. Sessums, jr. (under the name of W. R.
Sessums, jr.), and his minor son, William F. Sessums, Mary Bailey, William A-
Bailey, Minnie May Bailey (under the name of Minnie B. Bailey). Walter A. Har-
rison, Mary E. Harrison, John F. Sessums (under the name of J. F. Sessums),
William D. Sessums, Martha Fleming, Jesse Fleming, now Arms (under the name
of Jessie Lee Fleming), Emanuel W. Bailey, Newton Fleming, Rosa A. Ramsey,
Mary A. Bailey (now Bratcher), Myrtle Sessums (now Moore), Eva ^fay
Harrison (now Clayton), and EflBe A. Bratcher, were denied citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation by the Commission to the Five Chillzed Tribes under the
provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10. 1896 (29 Stats., 321) ;
that on January 20. 1808. they, together with the petitioner. Sealy Caroline
Sessums (under the name of Sella Sessums), were admitted to citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation by a judgment of the United States court for the central
district of Indian Territory, and that on March 9, 1904, they were denied
citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by a decree of the Choctaw and Chicltasaw
citizenship court in case No. 36 on the South McAlester docket of said court.
The records of this office further show that on May 27, 1904, the Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes dismissed the application for the enrollment of
Ruth Hazel Harrison, Charlie L. Sessums, Jacob C. Sessums. Mamie G. Flem-
ing, Lizzie V. Fleming, Homer B. Bailey, James Henry Ramsey, Mary D.
Bratcher, Bessie E. Bratcher, and Elbirtra Bmtcher as citizeus of the Choctaw
Nation for the reason that the persons through whom they claim citizenship
had been denied by the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court.
This office has no record of any application ever having been made for the
enrollment of the petitioners. Hester E. Bailey, T-.ois Fleming. Minnie M. Hill,
Joseph F. Hill. Dorothy E. Hill, WiUiam A. Hill, Mattie E. Moore, Rosa V.
Moore. Mable Thelma Clayton, Nellie A. Bratcher, and Walter L. Bratcher
as citizens of the Choctaw Nation, prior to the filing of the petitions herein;
neither does it appear that any application was ever made by the enrollment
of the petitioners, Lulu M. Sessums and Carrie E. Sessums. as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation. It Is possible, however, that these petitioners are identical
with May Sessums and Ethel Sessums, who were admitted to citizenship in
the Choctaw Nation by the United States court of the central district of
« Indian Territory on January 20, 1898, and who were denied citizenship by
the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court on March 9, 19<»4, in case No. 36,
on the South McAlester docket of said court.
It does not appear from the records of this office, neither is it alleged in
the petitions, that the petitioners or their ancestors, Retlding Sessums or
William Sessums, were recognized or enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw
Nation by any duly constituted authority prior to Januai-y 20. 1S98. the date
on which certain of the petitioners heretofore mentioned were admitted to
citizenship In the Choctaw Nation by a judgment of the United States court
for the central district of Indian Territory. The names of none of the petl
tloners or of the above-named ancestors appear on any of the tribal rolls of
the Choctaw Nation in the possessioi^ of this office; neither does it appear that
Pennie Sessums (n#e Fisher) was ever recognized or enrolled as a citizen
of the Choctaw Nation by any duly constituted authority; her name does
not appear on any of the tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation in the possession
of this office.
ORDER.
I am of the opinion that the i)etitIons fail to allege facts sufficient to waiTant
a hearing relative to the petitioners' alleged rights to enrollment as citizens of
the Choctaw Nation ; that the princii)al petitioners having been denied dtizen-
Bhip by the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court, and it not being alleged
Digitized by V^OOQIC
•00 FrVE CIVILiZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Ife the petitions or shown by the records of this office that any of the petitioners
i^ere recognized or enrolled citizens of the Choctaw Nation prior to Jannary
20, 1898, the date on which they were admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw
Nation by the United States court, they do not come under the opinion of
tte Assistant Attorney General of December 8, 1905, in the Choctaw enroll-
anent case of Ijoula West et ai., and that there is no authority of law for the
«iBronment of any of the petitioners as citizens of the Choctaw Nation; that
the petition should be denied, and it Is so ordered.
Tams Bixby,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Muskogee, Ind. T., May 8, 1906.
Cle3ion Clay Stinnett et al.
)>awe8 Commission, No. 15^. United States Coiat, Xo. 91, Ardnaore.
Citizenship Court, No. 25, Tishomingo.
Mary Elizabeth Stinnett et al.
Dawes Commission, No. 159. United States Court, No. 92, Ardmore.
"Choctaw-Chickasaw Citizenship Court, No. 34, Tishomingo.
Note. — Separate applications were made to the cottiimsskm in
1*&6 for the enrollment of the claimants in the above two cases. As
they all claimed through the same common ancestor, they will be
treated here as one case.
S^Kemfeer 7, 1896. Application was made to the cornmission for
the enrollment of Mary Elizabeth Stinnett, intermarried, as the
widow of Elbert Hartwell Stinnett, a Chickasaw Indian, and for the
eiirollment of their children, Thomas Oboner Stinnett (now dead),
jFohfi Clay Stinnett, Mary Eunice Abagail Stinnett, Early Mills
8tinn€rt;t, Valley Pearl Stinnett, Inez Jerome Syfces^ and Ruff Stin-
nett, as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
September 7, 1896. Application was filed with the Chickasaw
ftatioBal committee and transferred to the Dawes Commission for
ttie eiiroHwient of demon Clay Stinnett, Lewis day Stitmett, Wil-
liam Forrest Stinnett, John Elbert Stinnett, James Iv. Polk Stinnetts,
and Claude Franklin Stinnett as citizens by blood of the Cliickasaw
Nation.
The application of Clemon Clay Stinnett et al., a Chickasaw In-
diaYi by blood;, his wife, Mary Jane Stinnett, and his children
;alleges: That they are residents of Pickens County, Chickasaw Na-
tion, Ind. T.; that the principal applicant, Clemon Clay Stinnett, is
a son of Clay and Mary Stinnett :tnat Clay Stinnett is a Chickasaw
Indian bv blood and the son of William Stinnett and Abagail Stin-
nett, a Chickasaw Indian woman ^ that Abagail Stinnett, ffrand-
Hiother of principal applicant, Clemon Clay Stinnett, was Abagail
Oolbert, a full-blood Chickasaw Indian, and the daughter of Bill
Colbert.
Accompanying the application are the affidavits of —
{a) Clay Stinnett. 80 vears old; resident of Limestone County,
Ala.; post office. Mount feoswell, where he has lived for 60 years;
is a son of William and Abagail Stinnett (n^e Colbert) : that Aba-
^il Stinnett was a full-blood Chickasaw Indian; that Clemon Clay
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE dVTMZED TR»ES IN OKLAHOMA. 601
Stinnett, the principal applicant herein, left Alabama about 1878,
mav«d to Mills and Burnett Counties, Tex., where they lived for a
short while, and then moved to the Indian Territory, where they
now reside.
(b) R. C. Stinnett, 78 years of age; resident of Limestone County.
Ala.; that he is the uncle of the principal claimant, demon Clay
Stinnett; that his mother was Abagail Stinnett (nee Colbert), a
f uU-blood Chickasaw Indian ; that he has known demon day Stin-
nett all his life and up to the time lie left Alabama in 1878. '
(c) Isaac Stinnett, 76 years of age, a former slave of Clay Stin-
nett, and stating the same facts set out in the abo^'e affidavit of R. C.
Stinnett.
(rf) David McGowan, 82 y^ars old ; rei^dent of Limestone County,
Ala. ; certified to the good character and high standing of the Stin-
nett family in Alabama and stated the same facts as set out in the
above affidavit of Cky and R. C. Stinnett.
(e) Eliza Stinnett, 72 years old; resident of Limestone County,
Ala.; states the same facts set out in the above affidavit of Clay and
R. C. Stinnett.
(/) The affidavit of Humady Williams, 92 years old ; boWi in the
Chickasaw Nation, Mississippi-Alabama ; that he a<*ted as interpreter
for the whites and Indians on several occasions at Stonehill, where
the Indians got provisions, beef, etc. ; that he was well acquainted
with the Colbert family; that Abagail Colbert was a full-blood
Ohiokasaw and married William Stinnett.
{(/) Isaac Williams, 98 years old; bom in the Chickasaw Nation,
Mississippi- Alabama ; moved to Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., in 1887 ;
that he acted as intei^Direter for the Chickasaws and whites; that he
was acquainted with the Colbert family; that Abagail Colbert was
a full-Wood Chickasaw; that Abagail married a man bv the name
of William Stinnett.
ih) Thomas Stinnett, 55 years old: resident of Elk, Pickens
County, Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T. : that he lived in Pickens County,
Ala., about 80 years; at Monnt Roswell; that be was well acquainted
with Clay Stinnett, princijml applicant's (Clemon Clay Stinnett)
father, and that he was recognized by all who knew him to be n Chick-
asaw Indian by blood; that he has known Clemon Clay Stinnett
from a small boy and knew him to be the son of Clay Stinnett.
(i) J. B. M(?Cracken, 39 years old; resident of Alma, Ind. T.;
that he was bom and raised in Limestone County, Ala.; that he there
knew Clay Stinnett, who liver near Mount Roswell : that (^lay Stin-
nett, father of principal applicant, Clemon Clay Stinnett, was always
known as a Cnickasaw Indian; that he has known Clemon Clay
^innett all his life and knew him to be the son of Clay Stinnett.
(j) Malinda C. Ljmn, 52 years old; resident of Limes-tone County,
Ala.; lived near Mount Eoswell; that she knew Clay Stinnett and
his family; that they were always known as Chickasaw Indians:
that about 10 years ago she moved to the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T.,
where she now resides near Fox; that Clemon Clay Stinnett resides
near her and that she knows him to be the son of Clay Stinnett of
Limestone Cotmty, Ala.
Clemon Clay Stinnett, 45 years old, who states about the same facts
stated in the above affidavits.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
602 FIVE CIVIIJZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The application of Mary Elizabeth Stinnett et al. states that she
is the widow of Elbert Hartwell Stinnett, who died on December 2,
1893, at his home near Fox, in Pickens County, Ind. T., that the
other applicants are their children j that Elbert Hartwell Stinnett,
her husband, was a son of Clay Stinnett, and grandson of William
and Aba^ail Stinnett (nee Colbert) : that Abagail Stinnett was a
Chickasaw Indian by blood, was the daughter of Bill Colbert, a
full-blood Chickasaw; that she (Mary Elizabeth Stinnett) is a
widow woman ; that she was lawfully married to Elbert Stinnett oa
the 27th day of November, 1870, an<i the above named persons were
the issue of said marriage.
Accompanying the petition are the affidavits of Clay Stinnett,
R. C. Stinnett, Isaac Stinnett, Humady Williams, Isaac Williams,
J. B. McCracken. Malinda C. Lynn, Mary E. Stinnett, all certifying
to the facts stated in the petition.
November 23, 1896. The commission rendered its decision in both
cases in words and figures as follows, to wit: ''Application denied."
Both cases wei*e appealed to the United States court, southern dis-
trict, Ind. T. The records in both cases before the Dawes Commis-
sion were certified to the court, the cases there consolidated and re-
ferred to a master.
The depositions of N. F. Law, minister of the Gospel, 54 years old:
T. E. Roland: G. H. Godfrey, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation
and minister of the Gospel: J. F. McHughes, 42 years old; Patsy
Hall, a Choctaw Indian : I. E. McCuein, 69 years old, and resident
of Woodville, Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T. : G. W. Vault, 41 years old;
resident of Fox, Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T.; Mary Elizabeth Stin-
nett, widow of Elbert Hartwell Stinnett ; demon Clay Stinnett, one
of the leadinff claimants, all testifying as to the descent of the claim-
ants from Abagail Stinnett (n^e Colbert), a full-blood Chickasaw
Indian, or to the residence and relationship of the parties to each
other taken before W. H. L. Campbell, the present clerk of the Su-
preme Court of Oklahoma, the master in chancery.
January 23, 1897. The master filed his report in both cases, of
which the following is a literal copy of the report in the case of
demon Clay Stinnett et al. :
The application aUeges that C. C. Stinnett Is a lineal descendant of Abigal
Colbert, a full -blood Chickasaw Indian. The proof established the fact that
Abigrnl Colbert was a Chickasaw Indian and resided with the Chickasaws in
the State of Mississippi : that Abigal Colbert married William Stinnett, a white
man, and that the applicant, Clement Clay Stinnett, is a grandson of Abigal
Stinnett and n one-fourth Chickasaw Indian. I wish to remark that the appli-
cant shows Indian blood in his appearance. I therefore recommend that the
applicants in this case be enrolled as Chickasaw Indians.
February 21, 1898. — Judgment was rendered in the case of demon
Clay Stinnett et al. adjudging demon Clay Stinnett, Tjewis Claj
Stinnett. William Franklin Stinnett, John Clay Stinnett, James K.
Polk Stinnett, Claude Franklin Stinnett citizens by blood of the
Chickasaw Nation.
In the same judgment were included by mistake the names of M. A.
Scharley (nee Stinnett) and Mar^ret Casey Starrs (n^ Stinnett),
which last three named were by judgment of the court entered on
January 15. 1900, stricken from said original Judgment, (Certified
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 603
copies of the original and corrected judgment are herewith attached
and marked " Exhibit A.")
February 1, 1898. Judmient was entered in the case of Marj'
Elizabeth Stinnett et al. adjudging Mary Elizabeth Stinnett a mem-
ber of the Chickasaw Nation bv intermarriage, and her children —
Inez Jerome Sykes, Thomas Ohoner Stinnett, John Clav Stinnett,
Mary Eunice Abagail Stinnett, Ruff Stinnett, Earljr Mills Stinnett,
Valley Pearl Stinnett — citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
( Certified copy hereto attached and marked '' Exhibit B.")
Subsequently both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States, and the judgments of the United States court,
southern district, were there affirmed, and on August 16, 1899, the
mandates of the Supreme Court were forwarded to the lower court
directing the enforcement of said decrees, as will appear from the
decision in the case of Stevens v, Cherokee Nation (174 U. S.).
December 17, 1902. 'Judgment of the United States court vacated
by decree of the Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship court in " test case.*'
Subsequently the case was certified to the citizenship court for trial
de novo. The records in both cases before the commission and the
United States court were certified to the citizenship court.
At the May term, 1904, the testimony'of Clay Stinnett, I. R. Cume,
Mary Elizabeth Stinnett, and Wiley B. Stinnett was taken, and the
affidavits filed with the commission in 1896 and the evidence taken
before the United States court in 1897 were offered in evidence in
support of the testimony taken before the citizenship court. Objec-
tion was made to the introduction of the records beiore the commis-
sion and the court, and after the cases were submitted said objections
were sustained.
The record shows that on June 14, 1904, the attorneys for the
claimants not being present and no notice having been given said
attorneys, Mr. Cornish, of the firm of Mannsneld, McMurry &
Cornish, attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, offered
in evidence before the court a paper that purported to be a certified
copy of an application made by the claimants for citizenship in the
Cherokee Nation. If such a paper was there offered it is not now
of record, and careful examination of the records in the possession
of the commission of applicants made to the Cherokee national
authorities for the admission of claimants to citizenship does not dis-
close such an application ever having been made. All of the wit-
nesses testified, when asked while on the stand during the taking of
the testimony for the claimants if they had ever heard of an appli-
cation having been made to the Cherokee National Council for their
admission to the Cherokee Nation, that no such application had ever
been made.
At the November term, 1904, Judge Weaver rendered the opinion
of the court, in which he says:
The plaintiffs aU claim to be Chickasaw citizens by blood. There is grave
doubt in my mind, from the evidence before us, that such is the case; but, be
that as it may, the evidence discloses and conclusively shows that none of said
applicants removed to the Indian Territory before 1887. That some of them,
and others having the same ancestry, made application in 1887 to the "com-
mission on citizenship of the Cherokee Nation " for enrollment as citizens of the
Cherokee Nation. Before that time they had been residents of Alabama and
Digitized by VjOOQIC
604 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKIiAHOMA.
of Texas, where the older ones among them had bought and sold land, paid
taxes, and In other ways had exercised the right and performed the duties of
citizens of those States.
This court has repeatedly held that the Choctaw and Chlclcasaw Indians who
claimed the right to be enrolled as members of said nations and then be entitled
to share in the tribal lands and property must have come here and lived upon
the lands within at least a reasonable time after the same was ceded to than
by the treaties made with the Ignited States and the laws in pumance thereof.
As these plaintiffs did not do so, their application for citiaenship and enroll-
ment must be denied.
It is signifioant in this case this proceeding that the alleged certi-
fied copy of an alleged application made to the Cherokee national
authorities was introducea in evidence at a session of the court which
no notice had been given to the attorneys for the claimants and at
which they were not present. It is fitrther significant that the al-
leged certified paper is not a part of the record. This could have
b^n the only evidence offei^ in the case upon which the court could
have found that claimants aj^lied to the Cherokee national authori-
ties for admission as members of that tribe. The record discloses
that the proceedings were at least prejudicial to the rights of t^
applicants and the fact that the alleged certified copy of the papfer
is not a part of the record casts a doubt as to whetber such a paper
was ever offered. If it was offered it must have subsec^uently been
taken from the files of the case. The existence at any time of such
an application is ncft shown by the Cherokee records.
The record in this case is clear that claimants are the descendants
of Abagail Stinnett (nee Colbert), an Indian woman and a member
of tlie old Chickasaw Nation in Mississippi- Alabama,
November 29, 1004. Decrees were entered denying all the peti-
ticms of claimants.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that sucJi a decision of
the citizenship court in this case ought not to bar these people from
receiving their clear rights as members of the Chickasaw Nation.
That they were residents of the Chickasaw Nation in good faith
long before 1898 is not disputed anywhere in the reowd and that
they are Chickasaws by blood is clear. Counsel for claimants the^-
fore respectfully submit that the persons included in said judgments
should be enrolled as members of the Chickasaw Nation. They are:
Clemon Clay Stinnett, Lewis Clay Stinnett, William Forrest Stin-
nett, John Elbert Stinnett. James *K. Polk Stinnett, Claude Franklin
Stinnett, Mary Elizabeth Stinnett, Thomas Ohoner Stinnett. Mary
Eunice Abagail Stinnett, Early Mills Stinnett, Valley Pearl Stin-
nett, Ruff Stinnett, Inez Jerome Sykes.
(Thirteen in all).
Also the following newborns are entitled to enrollment, applica-
tion having been made to the Commission to Five Civilized Tribes
for their enrollment within the time prescribed by law: George A.
Stinnett (born February 1. 1900), Lynia Lee Stinnett (born Febni-
arv 1, 1902), Tonv Bishop Stinnett ^(born March 4, 1904), children
of John C. Stinnett: Henry Russell Thagard (born March 20,1902),
child of Marv Elizabeth Stinnett (now Thagard).
Respectfully submitted.
Ballixoek & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVII4ZED TRIBES IN OKLAB^OMA^ 605
TRANSCBIPT OF PBOCEfiDlNGS.
tjKiTED States Cotjbt, Indian Territory, Southern District, 8s:
At a stated term of the Uuited States court in tbe iDdiau Territory, southern
district, begun and had iu the court rooms at Aixluiore, la the Indian Territory,
on the 4th day of Decesaber, in the year of our Lord 1899.
Present The Hon. Uosea Townaend, judge of said court.
On the 15th day of January, 1900, being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Clemon C. Stinnett et al. v. Chicliaaaw Nation, 92.
ORDER CORRECTING JUDGMENT.
Now, on this day, this cause coming on to be beard on motion of the de-
fendant, tlie Chickasaw Nation, to correct th^ judgment herein, and It appear-
ing to the court that due notice of Siiid motion has been given the plaintiffs
herein, and the court being well and sufficiently advised in the premises^ doth
sustain said motion. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the
judgment in said a lK>ve-en titled cause as the same now appears of record be
corrected so as to speak the truth by stHking therefrom the names of Mary A.
Scharley and Margaret C. Starks which was erroneously embraced In said
judgment, and that said judgment be entered now for them. It is further
ordered that the clerk of this court transmit a certified copy of this judgment
to the Commission of the Five Civilized Tribes.
United States Cotj^t, Indian Territory, Southern District, ««;
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing ovders are truly
taken, and correctly copied from court journals of said court, as the same ap-
pears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore, this 26tJi day of Februarj'. A. D. 1900.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of IndlaBS, and th» disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certi-
fied copy of an order correcting judgment of court dated January 15, 1900, In
the matter of the enrollment of Clemon C. Stinnett et aL as members of the
Chiclcasaw Nation.
I further certify t^bat the word " erroneously " is interlined in ink, between
the words "was" and "embraced" la the twenty-first line of the order cor-
recting judgment.
transcript of prockedings.
I'NTTED States Court, Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court in the Indian Territory, southern
district, begun and had in the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, iu the year of our Lord 1897.
Present. The Hon. Hosea Townsend. judge of said court.
On the 1st day of February, 1S9S, l>eing a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
Mary BlisMibeth SUnnett r. Chickasaw Nation. No, 91.
JUDGMENT.
On this the 1st day of February, A. D. 1898, this cause came on to be heard
on the master's report and the exceptions thereto and the proof, and the court
being fully advised in the premises, is of the opinion that said master's report
herein filed should be confirmed, and that the plaintiff, the applicant herein,
are Chickasaw Indians. The applicant, Mary Elizabeth Stinnett, a Chickasaw
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
606 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Indian by intermarriage with E. H. Stinnett, now deceased, and the other
{•pplicants, her children, Chicl^asaw Indians by blood, and ought to be enrolled
as members of the Chiclvasaw Tribe of Indians and citizens of said nation. It
is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that Mrs. Elizabeth
Stinnett and her children, to wit. Inez Jerome Sykes, Thomas O'Hener Stinnett.
John Clay Stinnett, Mary Eunice Abegail Stinnett, Ruff Stinnett, Early Mills
Stinnett, and Valley Pearl Stinnett, be placed upon the rolls as members of
the tribe of Chickasaw Indians and citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, with all
the rights and privileges thereto in anywise belonging.
And the clerk of this court is hereby ordered to certify a copy of this Judg-
ment to the Dawes Commission for Its observance. To which the defendant
excepts.
United States Court, Indian Territory, Southern District, 88:
I, C. M. Campbdl, clerk of the United States court within and for the district
and Territory, aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing orders are truly
taken and correctly copied from court Journals of said court as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and afllxed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 9th day of March, A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk.
ByN. H. McCoy, Deputy.
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the ChocUiw, Chickasaw. Cherokee.
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of a certi-
fied copy of a Judgment of the court dated the 1st day of February, 1898, in
the matter of the enrollment of Mary Elizabeth Stinnett as a member of the
Chickasaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civiiizcd Tribes.
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Chickasaw Re^^rds.
TBANSCBIPT OF PROCEEDINGS.
United States Court, Indian Tertitory, Southern District, ss:
At a stated term of the United States court In the Indian Territory, southern
district, begun and had In the court rooms at Ardmore, in the Indian Terri-
tory, on the 15th day of November. In the year of our I^rd 1897 —
Present: The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court.
On the Ist day of February, 1898. being a regular day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the following, to wit :
JUDGMENT.
Clemon Clay Stinnett v. Chickasaw Nation.
On this the 1st day of February, A. D. 1898, this cause came on to be heard
on the master's report and the exceptions thereto and the proof; and the court
being fully advised In the premises, is of the opinion that the master's report,
herein filed, should be confirmed, and that the plaintiffs herein are Chickasaw
Indians by blood and ought to be enrolled as members of the Chickasaw Tribe
of Indians and citizens of said nation.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that Clemon Clay
Stinnett and his children, to wit, Lewis Clay Stinnett. William Forrest Stin-
nett, John Elbert Stinnett, James K. Polk Stinnett, Claud Franklin Stinnett.
Mary Alabama Scharley (n§e Stinnett), and Margaret Casey Starks (n^ Stin-
nett), be placed upon the rolls as members of the tribe of Chickasaw Indians
and citizens of 'the Chickasaw Nation, with all the rights and privileges thereto
in anywise belonging.
And the clerk of this court Is hereby ordered to certify a copy of this Judg-
ment to the Dawes Commission for Its observance, to wjiich the defendant
excepts.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 607
United States CJourt, Indian TerHtory, Southern District, ss:
I. C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the dis-
trict and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certifj that the foregoing orders are
truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the same
appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May. A. D. 1898.
[SEAL.] C. M. Campbell, Clerk,
This^s to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records pertain
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw. Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct coi)y of a certified
copy of a judgment of the court dated the 1st day of February, 189S, in the
matter of the enrollment of Clemon Clay Stinnett as a member of the Chickasaw
Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Chickasaw Records.
Elizabeth Hignight et al., Choctaw.
Dawes Commission, Xo. 426. United States Court, No. 144-A.
Citizenship Court, No. 16-T.
RECORD.
September 9, 1896. Original application filed for admission to
citizenship in the Choctaw Nation of Elizabeth Hignight; W. II.
Hignight, her husband; Joseph Hignight, her son; G. T. Hignight,
her son ; Lula Hignight, his wife ; R. Lettie May Hignight, George
Wesley Hignight, their children; J. H. Higpight, son of Elizabeth
Hignight ; Ann Hignight, his wife ; Willie Hignight, Lilly Hignight,
Nannie Hignight, Sarah Hignight, Lottie Hignight, their children ;
W. R. Hignight, son of Elizabeth; Ruthey Hi^ight, his wife;
Nancy Hignight, their child; Nannie Watkins (nee Hignight). Of
these, W. H. Hignight, Lula Hignight, Ann Hignight, and Ruthey
Hignight claim by intermarriage.
, 1896. Answer of Choctaw Nation filed.
December 2, 1896. Decision of commission denying application.
From this decision of the commission appeal was taken to the United
States court, southern district, Indian Territory, sitting at Ardmore,
where the case was tried upon the testimony taken by the master. No
testimony was offered by tne nations.
March 10, 1896. Decree of United States court admitting the fol-
lowing-named persons as citizens of the Choctaw Nation : Mrs. Eliza-
beth Hiffnight, G. T. Hi^ight, W. R. Hignight, J. H. Hignight,
Joseph Hignight, R. Lettie May Hignight, George Wesley Hignight,
Willie Hignight, Lillie Hignight, Sarah Hignight, Lottie Hignight,
Nancy Hignight, as citizens by blood, and W. H. Hignight, by inter-
marriage. (Certified copy of judgment is attached hereto, marked
"Exhibit A.")
December 17, 1902. Decree of citizenship court vacating decree of
United States court in '" test cJise.'' Record certified to citizenship
court for trial de noyo.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
608 FIVE CIVnjZED TWBte IN OKLAHOMA.
June 20. 1904. Decree of citiiieuskip court denying applieatk>n of
claiiuants. The case was tried upon the evidence adduced before the
commission and before the master. The record does not show any
additional testimony taken before the citizenship court. The uncon-
tradicted evidence shows that Elizabeth Hignight, principal appli-
cant, through whom all other applicants claim, was 62^ years of age
at the time of her application in 1896; that her father was Tom
Power, a white man, and her mother was Patsey Jane Power (nfe
West), a full-blood Choctaw woman; that the father and m;oth«r of
Patsey Jane Power were William West and Patsey Jane West, rec-
ognized full-blood Choctaw Indians, who lived in the old Choctaw
Nation, Miss. ; that Elizabeth Higniffht, principal applicant herein,
lived in the old Choctaw Nation until she was 8 years old, wheo her
parents brought her to the Indian Territory, and after leaving her
there for a snort time, took her to Tarrant County, Tex. ; that her
parents returned to the Indian Territory in about a year's time, leav-
mg applicant in Texas *' to go to school ; " that Elizabeth Hignight
married W. H. Hignight, a white man, in the year 1860, and has lived
with him ever since ; that she and W. H. Hignight and their children
came to Indian Territory " 16 years ago," or about 1880 or 1881, and
have lived in the Indian Territory continuously since that time.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that the followung-
named persons, admitted by judgment of the United States court, and
their descendants, are entitled, to be enrolled as citizens of the Choc-
taw Nation: Mrs. Elizabeth HipiiL^lit, G. T. Himight, W. R
Hignight, J. H. Hi^ig:ht, Joseph niirriight. R. Lettie May Hignight^
George Wesley Higmght, Willie Ili^nght, Li Hie Hignight, Sarah
Hignight, Lottie Hignight, Nancv Hijsrnight, W. H, Higni^t, Audrie
Marie Leverett. Nevada (or Yjevadji) Higniglit, James Bryan
Hignight, Charles R. Hignight, Earl .Hignight, Ella May Higni^t*
Olineteen in all.)
Respectfully submitted. •
Ballingbr & Lee.
Transcbipt of Procseding«.
I'NiTED States Court.
Indian Territory, Southern District , 88 :
At a stated term of the ITuited States court In the Indian Territory,
district, begun and bnd in the court roome at Ardmore, in the Indian Territory,
on the 15th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1887.
Present : The Hon. Hosea Townsend, Judge of said court
On the 10th day of March, 1898, being a reguJar day of said term of said
court, among the proceedings had were the foUowing to wit :
Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight et al., plaintiffs, t). Choctaw Nation, defendant Na 144.
On this the 10th day of March, A. D. 1898. the above-entitled action came
before tlie court by motion of plaintilTs attorneys, who appeared in opoi co«rt
and asked for a confirmation of the master's report herein, filed on the 29tli
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TfilBES IN OKLAHOMA. 609
day of January, A. D. IS^S. and for judgment directing that the applicants be
enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians, as recommended by the
master in the report aforesaid, which report was in words as follows:
"Mrs. Elizabeth HIgnlght et al.. plaintiffs, i\ Choctaw Nation, defendant.
No. 144.
** REPORT OF MASTER IN CHANCERY.
"This case came before me. John Hinkle, master in chancery for this court,
by an order of court rereferrinp the same, the same taken on the 22d day of De-^
cember, A. D. 1898, in open court.
"I find that this cause was filed by the applicants, Mrs.. Elizabeth Hignight
et al., before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes from the United
States in due time and in compliance with the laws regulating the same and
was by said commission rejected.
" That these applicants, plaintiffs herein, appealed said action to the TTnlted
States court at Ardmore, Ind. T., in due time and complied with the law govern-
ing appeals in like cases.
" From the evidence herein produced I find that Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight and!
her children by her husband, W. H. Hignight, viz, G. T. Hignight, W. R.
Hignight, J. H. Hignight. and Joseph Hignight; and R. Lettle May Hignight
and (xeorge Wesley Hignight, grandchildren of Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight and
children of G. T. Hignight : Willie Hignight. Lilly Hignight, Sarah Hignight, and
Ix>ttie Hignight, grandchildren of Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight and children of
J. H. Hignight; Nancy Hignight, grandchild of Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight and
child of W. R. Hignight, are each and every one Choctaw Indians by bloodr
and recommend that they be enrolled as such; and that W. H. Hignight, hus-
band aforementioned of Mrs. Elizat)eth Hignight, is a citizen of the Choctaw
Tribe of Indians by intermarriage, they having married September 9, 18^^ *w
required by law, and I recommend that he be enrolled as such. I the^eiore
recommend that each and all of the parties above mentioned be enrolled as
members of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians with all the privileges, benefits, and
Immunities belonging to members of said tribe who are now enrolled as such.
" I further recommend that Lula Hignight, wife of G. T. Hignight ; Annie,
wife of J. H. Hignight: and Ruthie Hignight, wife of W. R. Hignight, be denied
the right of cltizenshl]) and be not enrolled as citizens of said nation, they not
having compiled with the laws in force regulating marriage in the Choctaw
Nation at the time they were married to their husbands aforementioned.
" This January 29, 1898.
" John Hinkle, Master in Chancery.''
It appearing to the court that there are no exceptions filed herein by th^
defendant, after having due time in which to file same, and after the expiration
of the time governing the filing of exceptions to reports In like cases, and It
further appearing tl^t the finding of said master In chancery Is supported by
the evidence, and, in compliance with the laws governing in this case. It is
therefore ordered, decreed, and adjudged that said reix^rt of the master In
chancery be In all things confirmed. And it is further ordered, decreed, and
adjudged that Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight and her children and grandchildren,
to wit : G. T. Hignight, W. R. Hignight, J. H. Hignight, and Joseph Hignight,
her children; and her grandchildren, to wit: R little May Hignight, George
Wesley Hignight, Willie Hignight, Lilly Hignight, Sarah Hignight, Ix)ttie
Hignight, and Nancy Hignight, each and every one be enrolled as citizens
of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by blood; and that W. H. Hignight be
enrolled as a citizen of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians by intermarriage. And
that the clerk of this court furnish a certified copy of this decree to the Dawes
Commission and that the plaintiffs herein have judgment against the Choctaw
Nation for all costs herein incurred and expended, for which let execution issue.
United States Cx)rRT,
Indian Territory, Southern District, ss:
I, C. M. Campbell, clerk of the United States court within and for the distrfct
and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing orders
are truly taken and correctly copied from court journals of said court as the
same appears to me.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said court at Ardmore this 4th day of May, A. D. 1898.
[seal.] C. M. Campbell.
09282—13 39 Digitized by V^OOQIc
610 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
This is to certify that I am the oflacer having custody of the records per-
taining to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a certified
copy of a decree of court rendered on March 10, 1898, in the matter of the
enrollment of Mrs. Elizabeth Hignight et al. as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Weight,
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. Anoell,
Clerk in charge of Choctatc records.
Muskogee, Okla., November i, 1910.
D. B. Vernon et au
Dawes Commission, No. 25. United States Court, No. 98. Citizen-
ship Court, No. 81-M.
RECORD.
September 8, 1896. Applications filed for the enrollment of D. B.
Vernon and 38 others, all claiming to be Choctaw Indians by blood.
Twenty of said claimants alleged as an additional ground residence
in the nations since 1884, tribal affiliation, and recognition. A large
number of affidavits and depositions appear of record. The greater
portion of the testimony relating to the Choctaw blood of the claim-
ants is based upon family tradition as handed down by the parents
to their children by word of mouth. D. B. Vernon claims that the
name of Richard Vernon, his great-grandfather, and Sam Vernon,
his father, appear on the 1830 Choctaw roll, made about the time
the treaty of that year was signed. D. B. Vernon, the leadmg claim-
ant, was bom in Mississippi.
One witness, Peter Wolf, in 1897 testified that he was 70 years old.
" I knew Sam Vernon in the State of Mississippi, old Choctaw
Nation, and knew him to be a Choctaw Indian by blood, and was
recognized by the proper authorities as such, and his name should
appear upon the authenticated rolls of 1830. Hcl had a son by the
name of D. B. Vernon, who is the same person wiio appears in the
above-entitled cause, and now resides at Ryan, Chickasaw Nation,
Ind. T."
Peter Tillman, in 1897, testified that he was 84 years old, and cor-
roborated in detail the above statements of Peter Wolf. Many other
witnesses testified that the Vemons had always been recognized as
Choctaws by blood by the members of the Choctaw Tribe residing
in Indian Territory.
December 3, 1896. Conmiission rendered its finding in words and
figures as follows: "Application denied."
Thereafter the case was appealed to the United States court at
McAlester, central district, Indian Territory. Additional testimony
was taken by claimants., No testimony was taken by the nations.
August 26, 1897. Decree was entered admitting the following
persons to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation: D. B. Vernon,
John H. Vernon, Cneslev Taylor Vernon, Lucy Vernon, Amy
Pearl Vernon, Sophie F. Vernon, Jim W. Vernon, Caswell B. Ver-
non, Clydie B. Vernon, Ivey L. Vernon, Ida Vernon, M. J. Vernon,
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE OIVIUZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 611
George W. Vernon, Theodosha E. Vernon, Louisa T. Vernon, Robert
E. L. Vernon, Francis M. Vernon, Manda A. Vernon, Samuel H.
Vernon, Gracie T. Vernon. (Certified copy hereto attached.)
December 17, 1902. Decree of United States court vacated by
decree of citizenship court in test case.
March 14, 1903. Case certified to citizenship court for trial de
novo. Record before United States court offered in evidence, and
additional depositions taken by counsel for claimants. No testi-
mony taken by nations.
February 16, 1904. The following proceedings occurred in the
citizenship court :
Mansfield, McMurray & Comlsh for defendants.
This day this cause coming on to be heard, the following proceedings wer6
hiid. to wit:
Mr. Mansfield. I desire to submit that case on the record as It now stands.
We also desire to file a brief. I have a letter from Mr. Ralls, stating that he
can not get here until Wednesday morning, and that Vernon is .m witness in
a case at Ardmore and can not get here until that time, and asks me to get the
case continued.
Judge Weaver. I will mark the case submitted; biiefs to be flle<l. and if Mr.
Ralls makes » showing for the reoi)eaIng of the case we will iwss on it.
March term, 1904. Opinion bv Adams, chief judge. The court
holds the evidence not sufficiently definite and positive to entitle
claimants to enrollment, and adds :
They seem to have vacillated between the State of Arkanwis and the State
of Texas, and finally, when it is apparent to everyone that a distribution <if
the property belonging to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes of Indians Is
about to take place: and that the Choctaw and Chlckat-aw citizenship means
something more than a right to be tried in the Indian courts, jind 159 Irishes
applied to the bare back for the infringement of the Choctaw laws, they landed
in the Indian Territory, some of them, as the evidence shows, failing to get
here until their rights had been established by the United States Court for the
Central District.
I am of the opinion that none of the applicants have shown by comiwtent
testimony that the^ are Choctaw Indians, or any other kind of Indiana .Judg-
ment will therefore be entered by this court denying the application of plain-
tiffs for citizenship or enrollment as Choctaw Indians.
The above opinion is founded upon nothing in the record. All
the evidence submitted sustained the claims of applicants, and there
was no evidence offered by the nations.
March 21, 1904. Decree entered denying all of claimants admitted
by United States court, to enrollment as citizens of Choctaw Nation.
September 23, 1898. D. B. Vernon, John H. Vernon, Chesley T.
Vernon, Sophia F. Vernon, James W. Vernon, Caswell B. Vernon,
Clydie B. Vernon, Ivey L. Vernon, and Ida B. Vernon, appeared
before the Dawes Commission, sitting at Ada, and applied for ad-
mission as members of the Choctaw Tribe by blood, and were en-
rolled.
December 2, 1904. After the decision of the citizenship court,
whose decision was construed by the department as final, the commis-
sion rendered a decision denying all of claimants admission to citi-
zenship in said nation.
These claimants are one of the well-known and highly-respected
families in the Chickasaw Nation. Chesley Taylor Vernon is the
present clerk of the district court, eighth judicial district of Okla-
homa. He shows the Indian blood strong. He was seen by mem-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
612 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
bers of the House committee at Sulphur during the investigation in
. August
Counsel for claimants respectfullv submit that all of said claimants
included in the judgment of the tJnited States court are Choctaw
Indians by blood, as shown by the record, and are entitled to enroll-
ment as such. They are D. B. Vernon, John H. Vernon, Chesley
Taylor Vernon, Lucy Vernon (died 1898), Amy Pearl Vernon (now
Morgan), Sophia F. Vernon (now Nelson), Jim W. Vernon, Caswell
B. Vernon, Clydie B. Vernon, Ivey L. Vernon (now Wells), Ida
Vernon, George W. Vernon, Theodosha E. Vernon (now Howard),
Louisa T. Vernon (now Frazier), Robert E. L. Vernon, Francis M.
Vernon, Manda A. Vernon (not '*Manda A," but ""Maud," now
Bennett), Samuel H. Vernon, Gracie T. Vernon, M. J. Vernon.
(Twenty.)
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee,
Attorneys for Claimants.
copy of okder of court.
United States of Amebica,
Indian Territory, central district, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a
term thereof begun and held at South McAIester, in the Indian Territory, on
the 26th day of August, A. D. 1897.
Present : The Hon. William H. H. Clayton, Judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
D. B. Vernon et al. v. Choctaw Nation. No. 98.
JUDGMENT.
On this 26th day of August, A. D. 1897, the same being one of the days of
the April. A. D. 1897, term of this court this cause came on for trial on the
report of the master, W. B. Rutherford, appointed by this court for the pur-
[)oses of finding and reporting the facts herein, and the plaintiffs and defend-
ant appeared by their attorneys and announced ready for trial, and this cause
is by agreement submitted to the court for declslcm, and the court having
heard the evidence on the part of both plaintiff and defendant, and having
considered the report herein, and being well and fully advised in the premises,
doth confirm said report in every respect, and doth find that D. B. Vernon,
male, age 46; John H. Vernon, male, age 23; Chesley Taylor Vernon, male,
age 22 years; Lucy Vernon, female, age 19 years; Amy Pearl Vernon, female,
age 17 years; Sophia F. Vernon, female, age 14 years; Jim W. Vernon, male, age
13 years; Caswell B. Vernon, male, age 11 years; Clydie B. Vernon, male^ age
9 years ; Ivey L. Venion, female, age 7 years ; Ida Vernon, female, age 3 years ;
M. J. Vernon, female, age 26; George W. Vernon, male, age 20 years; Theodosha
E. Vernon, female, age 18; Louisa T. Vernon, female, age 17 years; Robert
E. Ij. Vernon, male, age 15 years; Francis M. Vernon, male, age 12 years;
Manda A. Vernon, female, age 11; Samuel H. Vernon, male, age 9 years; and
Gracie T. Vernon, female, age T^ years, are citizens of the Choctaw Natl«»n. and
that all of said above-named plaintiffs are citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, excepting M. J. Vernon, who is a citizen by intermarriage.
It is therefore ordered, considered, and adjudged by the court that said plain-
tiffs above named be, and hereby are. admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Na-
tion, with all the rights, privileges, and benefits of such citizens aforesaid In
and to the Choctaw Nation.
The court further finds that the other applicants herein were not residents
of the Indian Territorj- at the time of filing their application before the Coin-
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes, and did not reside therein at the time
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 613
their appeal herein was taken, and the same hereby are denied, to wit: J. F.
Vernon, male, age 33; M. A. Vernon, female, age 7 years; W. J. Vernon, male,
age 5 years; W. B. Vernon, male, age 4 years; Maud Vernon, female, age 3
years; Frank Vernon, male, age 2 years; Arnold Vernon, male, age 7 months;
R. H. Vernon, male, age 36 years; Ella Vernon, female, age 20 years; Pearlie
May Vernon, female, age 2 years; Irene Vernon, female, age 7 weeks; Brad-
lord C. Vernon, male, age 44 years; C. P. Vernon, male, age 19 years; D. C.
Vernon, male, age 17 years; E. J. Vernon, male, age 11 years; J. Y. Vernon,
male, age 9 years; B. C. Vernon, male, age 6 years; J. H. Vernon, male, age 3
years: and Q. W. Vernon, male, age 39 years.
It is further ordered and adjudged by the court that the clerk of this court '
shall transmit to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes a certified copy
of this Judgment and decree, and that said commission shall place the names
of the plaintiflTs admitted to citizenship in this action named above upon the
rolls i)repared or to be prepared by them of the citizens and members by blood
of the Choctaw Nation, excepting the name of M. J. Vernon, which name shall
be placed by said commission ui)on the rolls prepared or to be prepared by
them of the citizens and members by Intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation and
Tribe of Indians, and that such persons so admitted as citizens and members
of the Choctaw Nation as aforesaid shall be entitled to all the rights, privi-
leges, immunities, and benefits of citizens of the Choctaw Nation in all respects.
It Is further ordered that the plaintiffs have and recover of and from the
Choctaw Nation one-half all their costs in this behalf laid out and expended,
for all of which let execution issue.
llNiTtD States of America,
Indian Territory, district, ss:
I, E. .1. Fannin/ clerk of the District Court of the United States for the
District of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true
copy of an order made by said court on the 26th day of Augtist, 18D7, as ap-
pears from the records of said court now on file in my oflice.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, at my office in South
McAlester, in said district, this 20th day of March. A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.] E. J. Fannin. CIerk\
By J. M. Dodge, Deputy.
Mary A. Sanders et al., Choctaw.
Commission No. 789. United States court No. 63. Citizenship
court No. 43-M.
RECORD.
September 7, 1896. Original application (commission No. 789)
filed with the commission for the enrollment as citizens by blood
of the Choctaw Nation of Mary A. Sanders, and her children, Wil-
liam H. Sanders, Sallie E. Sanders, Sarah P. Sanders, Luther T.
Sanders, Emet G. Sanders, and James A. Sanders, husband of Mary
A. Sanders, by intermarriage.
Original application (commission No. 571) filed on same date for
the enrollment of George Ann Poole and Elzy R. Poole, her husband,
Mary L. Poole, Charles W. Poole, Thomas F. Poole, PZdward S.
Pocle, Annie Mjrtle Poole, Montie R. Poole, Elzy- A. Poole, her
children, all as citizens by blood, except Elzy R. Poole.
Application was filed with thie commission (commi&sion No. 561)
by Elzy R. Poole for the enrollment of himself and his family above
named, except George Ann Poole, his wife.
Original application (commission No. 835) filed with the commis-
sion on same date for the enrollment of Sarah L. Sanders, Charles B.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
614 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Sanders (husband), Sam Sanders, Arthur Sanders. Hardee San-
ders, Lessie Sanders as citizens by blood, except Charles B. Sanders,
intermarried.
Application (commission No. 832) filed with the commission for
the enrollment of James A. Sanders as a citizen by intermarriage
of the Choctaw Nation.
Application (commission No. 834) filed with the commission for
the enrollment of Charles B. Sanders as a citizen by intermarriage
of the Choctaw Nation.
Application (commission No. 654) filed with the commission for
the enrollment of Bell Ross as a citizen by blood and James E.
Ross, her husband, by intermarriage.
Original application (commission No. 1085) filed with the com-
mission for the enrollment of Robert L. Dillard aS a citizen by blood
of the Choctaw Nation.
October 7, 1896. Answer filed by the nations. Affidavits of prin-
cipal applicants and other witnesses were filed with the commission
in the case of Mary A. Sanders et al. (commission No. 789), showing
the blood, descent, tribal affiliation, and residence of applicants.
December 2, 3, 4, 5, 1896. Decision of the commission denying the
applications for enrollment of all applicants herein.
Appeal taken jointly to the United States court, central district,
Indian Territory, at South McAlester, by all applicants above
named, and the cases consolidated in said court under the title of
Marjr A. Sanders et al. v. Choctaw Nation, being No. 63 on the docket
of said court.
The case was tried in the United States court on the evidence
before the commission and on additional evidence taken before the
master. No evidence was offered by the nations, either before the
commission or before the master.
The evidence shows that applicants claim their right to enrollment
by descent from John Chronister, a Choctaw Indian of the half
blood; that John Chronister married a Choctaw woman, by whom
he had a daughter, Sarah A. Chronister, who intermarried with
Edward L. Dillard, a white man, by whom she had six children, who
are the applicants herein, viz, Mary A. Sanders, George Ann Poole,
Sarah L. Sanders, Bell Ross, Robert L. Dillard, Arnold (or W. A.)
Dillard; and that the other ajpplicants herein are grand children of
Sarah A. Dillard (nee Chronister).
John W. Sanders states that he is 46 years of age and a resident
of the Chickasaw Nation; that he is personally acquainted with
George Ann Poole, and knows that she was the daughter of Eldward
L. and Sarah Dillard; that he knows the said Sarah Dillard, and
knew that she was recognized and regarded by the public as a Choc-
taw Indian woman ; that she was born about the year 1846 and died
about the year 1893; that Sarah Dillard was at least one- fourth
Choctaw blood.
George Ann Poole states that she is 33 years of age, and a resident
of the Choctaw Nation; that she is a daughter of Edward L. and
Sarah Dillard; that the maiden name of Sarah Dillard was Chron-
ister, and she was the daughter of the late John Chronister, who was
born in Mississippi about l790, and died in Texas about 1851; that
John Chronister was a Choctaw by blood; that he married a Choctaw
woman in Mississippi, and as a result of said union Sarah Dillard
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IK OKLAHOMA. 615
was bom in Mississippi about 1846 ; that Sarah Dillard moved to the
Choctaw Nation from Texas, and died in Atoka County, Choctaw
Nation, in 1893. Affiant further states that she married Elzy R.
Poole, a white man, in 1875.
Note. — This family reside in Pooleville (formerly Elk), Chicka-
saw Nation, and that it is a well-known and influential family is
shown by the fact that the name of the town wherein they reside was
changed from Elk to Pooleville.
SvTvester Johnson states that he is 25 years of age and a resident
of tne Choctaw Nation ; that he is personally acquainted with George
Ann Poole; that he became acquainted with oarah A. Dillard in
Texas in 1880, and knew her until her death in the Choctaw Nation
in 1893: knew the applicants, who are the children of Sarah A.
Dillard. for 15 y^ars. and that they are regarded as Choctaw Indians
by the public generally.
Mary A. Sanders states that she is 34 years of age and a resident of
the Choctaw Nation: that her maiden name was Dillard, and that
she is a daughter of Edward L. and Sarah Dillard : that the maiden
name of Sarah Dillard was Chronister, and she was the daughter of
John Chronister. who was bom in Mississippi about 1790 and died in
Texas in 1851; that the said John Chronister was a Choctaw Indian
by blood and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation; that the said John
Chronister married a Choctaw woman in Mississippi; that Sarah
Dillard subsequently moved from Texas to the Choctaw NaticMi, and
died in 1893 in Atoka County; that applicant's parents taught her
that Sarah Dillard was at least one-fourth Choctaw blood and that
John Chronister was a member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians in
Mississippi. Affiant further states that she married James A. San-
ders, a white man: that Sarah Dillard married Edward L. DiUard,
a white man, in 1880.
Thomas York states that he is a full-blood Choctaw Indian and a
citizen of the Choctaw Nation; that he was born in Mississippi in
1822, and became personally acquainted with John Chronister about
1835, and knew him personally until about 1845. when he moved
from Mississippi. He further states " that the said John Chronister
was a Choctaw Indian and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and a
member of the Choctaw Tribe of Indians." That John Chronister
emigrated west of the Mississippi River about 1845, and that he harf
a family with him. He also states that John Chronister's wife was
an Indian woman ; that he is acquainted with the applicants, George
Ann Poole and Mary A. Sanders and Sarah L. Sanders, and that
thev reside in the Choctaw Nation; that they have improvements
and are residing on same in the Choctaw Nation: that John Chron-
ister left Mississippi at least 10 years before the Civil War; that he
was " fully a hair blood, his wife was also a Choctaw Indian."
Other witnesses testify as to the blood, descent, tribal affiliation
and residence of applicants herein, showing that John Chronister,
through whom they claim their descent, was a Choctaw Indian of at
least half blood; that he married a Choctaw woman, whose propor-
tion of blood is not stated: that Sarah A. Dillard is his daughter;
and that the applicants herein^are her children and grandchildren.
The evidence also shows that the family were recognized as Choctaw
Indians.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
616 FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The evidence shows further that John Chronister, the ancestor
through whom applicants claim, left Mississippi about 1845 and went
to Missouri, where he stayed but a short time, thence to Texas,
where he died in 1851 ; that the family remained in Texas until the
year 1888, when a portion of them moved to the Chickasaw Nation
and from thence to the Choctaw Nation; and that all of them had
removed to and become residents of the Choctaw Nation in 1895,
except Arnold (or W. A.) Dillard, who remained in Texas, and never
became a resident of Indian Territory until after the decree of the
United States court was rendered admitting the other applicants.
September 9, 1897. The master filed his report, which is as follows :
In the United States court, central judicial district of the Indian Territory, at
South McAlester.
Mary A. Sanders and her husband, James A. Sanders, nnd her minor children,
William H., Dollie E., Sarah P., Luther, and Emmett G. Sanders; George Ann
Poole and her husband, Elzy R. Poole, and minor children, Mary L.. Charles
W.. Thomas F., Edward S.. Anna M.. Montie R., and Elzy A. Poole; Sarah I^
Sanders and her husband, Charles B. Sanders, and her minor children, Samuel
M., Arthur. Hartle. and Lessie Sanders; Bell Ross and her husband, James
Ross, and her minor child, John E. Ross; Robert L. Dillard; Arnold Dillard
r. Choctaw Nation.
To Hon, W. H. H. Clayton, judge of add court:
Having been appointed special master in the above-entitled cause, I have
examined the evidence filed therein, and beg leave to submit the following
findings of facts:
I find that the applicants herein made application in due time to the Com-
mission to the Five Civilized Tribes, commonly called the Dawes Commission,
•aid application was made and filed tn due time.
I further find that defendants filed answer in due time, and that on the 2d
day of December, 1896, said applications were denied, and that on the 80th
day of January, 1897, the applicants filed their appeal in this court
I further find that Mary A. Sanders, William H., Dollie E., Sarah P., Lutber,
and Emmett G. Sanders, and George Ann Poole and Mary L., Charles W.,
Thomas P., Edward S., Anna M., Montie R., and Elzy A. Poole, and Sarah L.
Sanders and Samuel M., Arthur, Hartie, and Lessie Sanders, Bell Ross and
John E. Ross, and Rol>ert L. Dillard, and Arnold Dillard. are Choctaw IndioBS
by blood and citizens of the Choctaw Nation, and that they are the lineal
descendants of the late John Chronister, who was a Chlctaw by blood and who
formerly resided in the old Choctaw Nation now the State of Mississippi.
I furUier find that Mary A. Sanders intermarried with James A. Sanders, and
by such marriage the above-named children were born ; that George Ann Poole
Intel inarrieti with Elzy R. Poole, and that by such marriage the above-named
children were born; that Sarah L. Sanders intermarried with Charles B.
8anders, and that by such diarriage the above-named children were bom ; that
Bell Ross intermarried with James Ross, and that by such marriage the above-
named child was born; that said marriages were solemnized according to law.
but not according to the Choctaw law, and that said James A. Sanders, Elzy
R. Poole. Charles B. Sanders, and James Ross are white men and no Indians.
I further find that all of the applicants herein were at the time of the filing
of UuMr ;ii»plic\-itions bona fl<le residents of the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., and are
now residing therein, except Arnold Dillard who never has resided in the
CJhoctaw Nation, and Bell Ross and John E. Ross who are absent temporarily
In Texas.
I further find that the applicants herein are of white and Choctaw blood
only. All of which I most respectfully submit.
T. N. Foster, SpcciaJ Master.
. Received my fee, $5. •
T. N. Fosteb, Special Master.
On the same day the court rendered judgment admitting the fol-
lowing-named persons to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation: Mary
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 617
A. Sanders, William H. Sanders, DoUie E. Sanders, Sarah P.
Sanders, Luther Sanders, Emmett G. Sanders, George Ann Poole,
Mary L. Poole, Charles W. Poole, Thomas F. Poole, Edward S.
Poole, Anna Murtie Poole, Montie R. Poole, Sarah L. Sanders,
Samuel Sanders, Arthur Sanders, Hartie Sanders, Lessie Sanders,
Bill Ross, John E. Ross, John E. Ross, Robert L. Dillard.
Certified copy of said judgment is hereto attached marked " Ex-
hibitA." i'J' J « -
December 17, 1902. Decree of citizenship court vacating decree of
United States court in "test case."
Record certified to the citizenship court for trial de novo.
June 8, 1903. Attorneys for the nations filed a motion in the citi-
zenship court, requiring plaintiffs to make more specific and definite
the allegations contained in the petition. The motion was in con-
formity with the rulings of the court, holding that no person was
entitled to a judgment adjudging him a citizen of the Choctaw
Nation, unlee he could show tnat his ancestors removed from the
Choctaw Nation in Mississippi to the Choctaw Nation in Indian
Territory within " a reasonable time " after the treaty of 1830, or that
the ancestors through whom they claim complied with the fourteenth
article of the treaty of 1830 by selecting lana or notifying the United
States Indian agent of his intention to remain in Mississippi and
live on the land for a period of five years. As claimants' ancestors
removed from the Choctaw Nation in Mississippi in 1845, which had
theretofore been held by the court not to have been a reascmable time,
and as their ancestors had not complied with the fourteenth article
of the treaty of 1830, it was impossible for them to amend their
petition so as to bring their case within the rulings of the court.
June 10, 1903. Motion to make more specific and definite was sus-
tained by the court.
Notwithstanding this motion was sustained, the court heard the
testimony of Mary A. Sanders on June 13, 1903, the only witness
who appeared and testified. She testified as to the death or removal
from the Indian Territory of the witnesses whose affidavits were in-
troduced. She also testified that her grandfather, John Chronister,
was a half-blood Choctaw Indian, lx)m in Mississippi; that her
mother was recognized as a Choctaw Indian from her personal ap-
pearance; that her mother, Sarah A. Sanders, died nine years before
and was buried in the Choctaw Nation; that "Mr. Lawrance, the
Indian, preached her funeral,'' and that " the funeral rites over her
grave were of the Choctaw custom"; that applicant never had to
pay any permits; and that the tribal authorities permitted non-
citizen renters under her.
On cross-examination she testified that J. A. Sanders made appli-
cation to the Choctaw council for citizenship for Sarah A. Dillard
" something over nine years ago," but that they did not go ahead
with it, as they charged him so much that he didn't know what to
do; that some member of the council wanted to charge him $1,000,
and he could not raise that much.
The record before the commission and the United States court in
this, as in all other cases, was rejected because of the holding of the
citizenship court that the original application submitted to the com-
mission in 1896, with accompanying aflSdavits, was not served upon
both nations, but service thereof was made on the [^^^l^f^^^^^^Y^
618 FIVE CIVILIZBD TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
only and excluded the testimony before the United States court be-
cause notice of the taking of the testimony had not b^n given to the
attorneys of both nations, notice having been served upon the attor-
neys for the Choctaw Nation only.
No decision was rendered by the court in this case, or if rendered
is not of record.
January 20, 1904. Decree of citizenship court denymg citizenship
to all applicants.
STATEMENT BY CX)UNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that those applicants
whose names appear in the decree of the United States court, to-
gether with their children and grandchildren, for whose enrollment
applications were duly made to the commission within the time pre-
scribed the law, should be enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw Ifa-
tion. They are Mary A. Sanders, William H. Sanders, DoUie E.
Sanders, Sarah P. Sanders, Luther Sanders, Enmiett G. Sanders,
George Ann Poole. Mary L. Poole, Charles W. Pooles Thomas F.
Poole, Edward S. Poole, Anna Murtie Poole, Montie K. Poole, Elzy
A. Poole, Sarah L. Sanders. Samuel Sanders, Arthur Sanders, Hartie
Sanders, Lessie Sanders, Bill Ross (Bell Ross), John E. Ross, Robert
L. Dillard, Archey L. Sanders. Bessie May Sanders, Maggie May
Poole, John Everett Poole, William O. Sanders, Fanny V. Sanders,
Charles Edward Sanders, Delia May Roas, Mary Belle Ross, and
Valter L. Dillard.
(Thirty-two in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Balunger & Lee.
COPY OF ORDER OF COURT.
T'NrrED States of America.
Indian Territory, central district, #«;
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a term
thereof bepun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on the 9th
day of September. A. D. 1897.
Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton. Judge of said court.
The following? order was made and entered of record, to wit:
Mary A. Sanders et al. r. Choctaw Nation. No. 63. Judgment.
The above-entitled cause coming on to be heard this the 9th day of September,
1897, upon the rej)ort of the special master in chancery, T. N. Foster, Esq.,
which said rejwrt is by the court confirmed and approved, and exhibits there-
with filed, and the plaintiffs and defendants api>earing by their respective
attorneys, and it appearing by the said master's report and the evidence filed in
this cause that the allegations filed in the plaintiffs' petition are true, and the
court being fully advised in the premises it is therefore by the court considered,
ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said plaintiffs, Mary A. Sanders, Wil-
liam H. Sanders. Dollie E. Sanders, Sarah P. Sanders, Luther Sanders, E^mmett
G. Sanders, and George Ann Poole, Mary I.. Poole. Charles W. Poole, Thomas F.
Poole. Edward S. Poole. Anna Mur ie Poole. Montie R. Poole. Elzy A. Poole,
and Sarah L. Sanders, Samuel Sanders, Arthur Sanders, Hattle Sanders,
I^essie Sanders, and Bill Ross, John E. Ross, and Robert L. Dillard. be and
they are hereby admitted to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, and tlieir
names be placed upon the Choctaw rolls as Choctaw citizens prepared, or to be
prepare<l by the United States Conmiission to the Five Civilized Tribes of
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 619
ludlans: that said commission is hereby directed to place the names of the
said Mary A. Sanders, Wiiliam U. Sanders, Dollie £. Sanders, Sarah P. Sanders,
Luther Sanders, Emuiett G. Sanders, and George Ann Poole, Mary L. Poole,
Charles W. Poole, Thomas F, Poole, Edward S. Poole, Anna M. Poole, Montie
R. Poole, Elzy A. Poole, and Sarah L. Sanders. Samuel Sanders, Arthur
Sanders, Hat tie Sanders. Lessie Sanders, and Bill Ross, John E. Ross, and
Robert L. Dillard upon said roll.
The court further finds that the plaintiffs James A. Sanders, Elzy R. Poole,
Charles B. Sanders, and James Ross, are not entitled to citizenship, not having
married according to the Choctaw laws, and it is therefore considered, ordered,
and adjudged that the names of said plaintiffs last named be excluded from
the rolls of the Choctaw citizens prepared by said commission, and that the
defendant have judgment against said plaintiffs (last named) for the costs.
The clerk of this court is hereby directed to furnish the said commission
with a true and perfect copy of this judgment, decree, and order, and that the
plaintiffs have and recover of and from the Choctaw Nation all their costs
herein laid out and expended.
IGNITED States of America,
Indian Territory, central district, ss:
I, E. J. Fannin, clerk of the district court of the United States for the
central district of the Indian Territory, do hereby certify the foregoing to be
a true copy of an order made by said court on the 9th day of September, 1897,
as appears from the records of said court now on file In my office.
In testimony w^hereof. I have hereunto set my hand, at my office in South
McAlester in said district, this 11th day of March. A. D. 1903.
[SEAL.1 E. J. Fannin, Clerk,
By I. M. Dodge, Deputy,
This is to certify that I am the officer having custody of the records per-»
talning to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Chero-
kee, Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land
of said tribes, and that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of
a certified copy of a judgment dated September 9, 1897, in the matter of the
enrollment of Mary A. Sanders et al. as members of the Choctaw Nation.
J. Geo. Wright,,
Connnisaioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
By W. H. Angell,
Clerk in Charge of Choctaw Records,
John Mitchell et al., Choctaws.
Dawes Commission, No. 116. United States court, No. 116. Citizen-
ship court, No. 101. Commission, No. 5014.
RECORD.
September 5, 1896. Application was submitted to the commission
for tne admission of John Mitchell, Alfred H. Mitchell, John W.
Mitchell, William J. Mitchell, Robert H. Mitchell, Dochia A.
Mitchell, Myrtle Lee Mitchell, Ollie Mitchell, Andrew J. Mitchell,
Luella Pyburn, Milton H. Pyburn, Benjamin H. Pyburn, James B.
Pyburn, Mary L. Pyburn, Emma J. Welch, Adella B. Welch, John
N. Welch, Christian P. Welch, Meton Welch, David Welch as citizens
of the Choctaw Nation by blood and that they be duly enrolled as
such.
Accompanying the application are the following affidavits:
(a) Rachel Colbert states:
I am acquainted with John Mitchell, who is a son of David Mitchell, a white
man, who married Rebecca Folsom, a Choctaw woman by blood, daughter of
Digitized by V^OOQIC
620 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Ned Folsom, and that Rebecca Mitchell (n^ Folsom) was the mother of John
Mitchell, applicant for rights of citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. I hare
known them In the old nation. Cotton Gin County. I am 66 years old. I am A
citizen of the Choctaw Nation and have no Interest in the prosecution of this
claim.
(b) The deposition of Tennessee Gardner, an old enrolled Choc-
taw Indian, who stated:
John Mitchell ; his mother was Beckie Folsom.
Q. She was the daughter of Ned Folsom, was she? — A. Yes. sir; old man Ned
Folsom.
Q. Ned Folsom was a Choctaw by blood, was he? — A. Old man Ned Folsom
was a white man, and his wife was a half breed
Q. They lived In the old nation, did they? — A. They lived in the old nation
at Pigeon Roost.
Q. Do you know Jerry Folsom? — A. He was his uncle.
Witness further states that John Mitchell's mother, Rebecca, was
a half-breed and that John Mitchell has a " house full of children."
(c) T. L. Wiley states substantially the same as the above witness.
(d) The affidavit of J. J. Grardiner, stating that he was attorney
for John Mitchell and family before the citizenship committee in
1802; that he presented their claim and it was allowed by the com-
mittee, and the House of Representatives in 1894 referred it back
to the committee for additional evidence; that the case remained
before the committee, but never was acted upon.
The statement of this witness is corroborated by the records of the
'Choctaw Council, which show (citizenship, cases, p. 52) that on
October 20, 1892, this case was allowed by tne citizenship committee.
A number of other affidavits setting out the blood and descent of the
claimants from ReJt>ecca Folsom accompany the petition.
September 19, 1896. Answer of nations filed, stating:
That the evidence is insufficient to establish claimants' rij?ht to citizenship.
That the evidence shows that claimant has presented his application for citi-
zenship to the Choctaw tribunal, and that said application is still pending there
and has not been decided.
December 1, 1896. The commission rendered its decision in words
and figures as follows, to wit: "Denied."
February 1, 1897. Case appealed to United States court, central
district, Indian Territory. The depositions of a number of witnesses
were taken before a master, all corroborating the allegations con-
tained in the original petition. No evidence was offered by the
nations.
August 25, 1897. The case was heard by the court, and judgment
was entered admitting John Mitchell, Andrew J. Mitchell, Milton
Welch, Dosia A. Welch, Luella Pyburn, Emma J. Welch, Alfred H.
Mitchell, John W. Mitchell, William J. Mitchell, Robert H. Mitchell,
Docia A. Mitchell, Myrtle I^e Mitchell, OUie Mitchell, M. H. Py-
burn, James B. Pyburn, Mary L. Pyburn, Odella B. Welsh, John M.
Welsh, and Christian P. Welsh as members of the Choctaw Nation
by blood.
(Certified copy of said judgment hereto attached.)
December 17, 1902. Judgment of United States court set aside
and vacated by decree of citizenship court in " test case."
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 621
March 9, 1903. Eecord before commission and United States court
c*ertified to citizenship court for trial de novo.
Attorney for claimants, J. G. Ralls, related by marriage to the
Fulsoms.
Kfovember 15, 1903. Witnesses examined by court for claimants:
Green Taylor; Rufus Gamer: Sampson Gramer, a full-blood Choc-
taw; John Mitchell; and D. D. Durant, a full blood. Witness ex-
amined for nations : J. C. Fulsom.
In addition, all the affidavits and depositions filed before the com-
niission in 1896 and depositions taken before the United States court
in 1897 were offered and objected to by counsel for the following
reasons as stated :
Mr. OoBNisH. The nations object to the Introduction of the pai>er8 referred
to. As to aU papers referred to as having; been filed before and made use of by
the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, except affidavits, the nations ob-
ject, because they are parts of a void proceeding had before the Commission to
the Five Civilixed Tribes under the act of June 10. 1896, to which both nations
were necessary and Interested parties and wherein only one nation was served
and made a party. As to affidavits filed and made use of before the Dawes
Commission, they urge that they are not competent for the reason they are ex
parte,' having been taken without notice to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations,
the necessary and interested parties. As to all papers filed before and made use
of by the United- States court, except depositions, the nations object for the reason
that they are parts of a void proceeding had before the United States court,
wherein both nations were necessary and interested parties and to which only
the Choctaw Nation was served and made a party. They object for the further
reason that the cause was tried de noro in the United States court when the
action of the conrt should have been confined to a review of the proceeding on
the papers and evidence filed before the commission. As to all depositions filed
before the United States court the nations object and set forth the same oi)Jec-
tions as urged in connection with affidavits filed before the Commission to the
Five CivUi^ed Tribes, and also for the reasons set forth in objections to other
papera
The nations wish to call attention to the fact that the depositions of Green
W. Taylor was introduced and asked to be considered as evidence when he was
[»resent here on the stand to-day.
The court withheld its ruling on the objection until after the case
was finally submitted. While the record does not disclose that the
objection was sustained in this case, the court uniformly sustained a
similar objection in all other cases. No opportunity, therefore, was
afforded claimants to call witnesses for examination by this court.
Judge Adams, in rendering the decision of the court, says:
The evidence in this case shows that John Mitchell, the principal applicant
(the other plaintiffs being his descendants), was born In the State of Missis-
sippi, and that he emigrated from that State to the State of Arkansas about
the year 1858, where he remained until about 13 or 14 years ago, when he
moved into the Indian Territory. That Nathaniel Fulsom, who seems to be the
originator of the Fulsom family, who are now Choctaw Indians, married a
Choctaw woman in the State of Mississippi, and had the following children:
Mollle F. Fulsom, Delia Fulsom. David Fulsom, Rebecca Fulsom, Rhoda Ful-
som, and Israel Fulsom: that Mollle Fulsom married a man named Sam
Mitchell, and had two chlWren by that marriage, one of them dying in infancy,
and the other, whose name was Sophia, seems to have been married three
times; the first time to a man named Hancock, and then to a man named Moore,
and then to a man named Tiner; that Delia married a man named Cameron
and had two children named Margaret and Alex ; that David married Mary Nail
and had the following children : Cornelius, Henry, I^ren, Simpson, Nora, David,
and Rhoda; and that Rhoda. another daughter of Nathaniel Fulsom, married
P. P. Pitchlyn, who was at one time principal chief of the Choctaw Nation,
Digitized by VjOOQIC
622 FIVE CTVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
and a delegate to Washington; that Rebecca married a man named Black:
and that Israel Fulsom married Tobitha Nail.
This accounts for the descen(|ants of the original Fulsom. who was a white
man, and married a Choctaw woman.
The plaintiff. John Mitchell, claims to be the son of Rebecca, when the evi-
dence shows that she married a man named Black.
I am of the opinion that these applicants have failed to produce sufficient evi-
dence to show that they are Choctaw Indians; or, that they are descendants
of such Choctaw Indians as would entitle them, under the laws and treaties,
to citizenship and enrollment as Choctaw Indiana
The case, therefore, turns upon the one question as to the descent
of claimants from Eebecca Fulsom; whether she married David
Mitchell, claimant's father and grandfather, or whether she married
a man named Black, as held by the court.
All the testimony offered before the commission and the United
States court is clear that Rebecca Fulsom married David Mitchell,
father of John Mitchell, leading claimant herein. In those proceed-
ings there was no question to the contrary. Of the six witnesses who
testified before the citizenship court, five of them, who knew the
Mitchells and Fulsoms in Mississippi, testified that Da\4d Mitchell
married Rebecca Fulsom. Only one witness, J. C. Fulsom, who Came
to the Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory, in 1831, and whose prin-
cipal knowledge of his own family was by tradition,^ testified that
Rebecca Fulsom, whose relationship to hini is not shown, married a
man by the name of Black. When asked: " If these people were re-
lated to you would you know it (meaning John Mitchelrs family) T'
he answered : " The record of the Fulsoms would show it, but I
never have seen it." It was then shown that the family record of
the Fulsoms had been lost, and was not in existence. It was ad-
mitted by J. C. Fulsom that he had been in the penitwitiary, having
been convicted of murder.
Thus the decision of the citizenship court is based upon the testi-
mony of one witness alone, who did not profess to know the facts of
his own personal knowledge, but by familv tradition only. AH the
other testimony in the record (which is vofuminous) upon this point
is that Rebecca Fulsom married David Mitchell, and that John
Mitchell was the issue of that marriage.
April 18, 1904. Decree was entered denying claimant's admi^ion
to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation.
Applications were submitted to the commission before January 1,
1906, for the enrollment of the following new-born children: Roy
Addus Mitchell, son of Robert H. Mitchell, and Jessie Lee Mitchell
and Mattie Mitchell, children of William Mitchell.
May 24, 1904. Applications denied by commission, because the
parents of said children had been decreed by the Choctaw-Chickasaw
citizenship court not to be citizens of the nation.
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that those persons ad-
mitted by judgment of the United States court in 1897, and their
children for whose enrollment applications were duly made to the
commission within the time required by law, should be enrolled.
They are : John Mitchell, Andrew J. Mitchell, Milton Welsh, Dosia
A. Welsh, Luella Pybum, Emma J. Welsh, Alfred H. Mitchell, John
W. Mitchell, William J. Mitchell, Robert H. Mitchell, Docia A.
Mitchell, Myrtle Lee Mitchell, Ollie Mitchell, M. H. Pyburn, James
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 628
B. Pyburn, Mary L. Pyburn, Odella B. Welsh, John M. Welsh,
Christian P. Welsh, Roy Addus Mitchell, Jessie Lee Mitchell, Mattie
Mitchell.
Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field.
COPY OF ORDKR OF COUBT.
tlNiTED States of America,
Indian Territory, Central District, ss:
In the United States court in the Indian Territory, central district, at a term
thereof begun and held at South McAlester, in the Indian Territory, on the 25th
day of August. A. D. 1897.
Present, the Hon. William H. H. Clayton, Judge of said court.
The following order was made and entered of record, to wit :
John Mitchell et a I. t?. Choctaw Nation. 116. Judgment.
On this day this cause came on to be heard, whereupon the plaintiffs and
defendants announced ready for trial, and the court having heard the evidence
and argument of counsel finds the issues in favor 'of the plaintiffs herein, and
finds that the plaintiffs. John Mitchell, Andrew J. Mitchell, Milton Welsh. Dosia
A. Welsh, Luella Pyburn, Emma J. Welch, Alfred H. Mitchell. John W.
Mitchell, William J. Mitchell, Robert H. Mitchell. Docia A. Mitchell, Myrtle Lee
Mitchell, Ollie Mitchell, M. H. Pyburn. BenJ. H. Pyburn, James B. Pyburn.
Mary L. Pyburn, Odella B. Welch. John M. W^elsh. and Chrlstenia P. Welch are
members by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and that all of said plaintiffs are enti-
tled to be placed ui)on the rolls of the members of the Choctaw Nation as such
members, and entitled to all the rights, privileges. Immunities, and benefits as
such members.
It Is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the sjiid i>Iaintlffs. John
Mitchell, Andrew J. Mitchell. Milton Welsh, Dosia A. Welsh, liUelle Pyburn.
Emma J] Welsh. Alfred H. Mitchell, John W. Mitchell, William J. Mitchell.
Robert H. Mitchell, Docia A. Mitchell. Myrtle Lee Mitchell, Ollie Mitc^hell, U.
H. Pyburn, James B. Pyburn. Mary L. Pyburn, Odella B. Welsh, John M. Welsh,
and Chrlstenia P. W^elsh are members by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and that
the defendant, the Choctaw Nation, recognize the said plaintiffs as such mem-
bers in all respects, and that the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes place
the names of these plaintiffs upon the rolls as members of the Choctaw Nation
as herein adjudged, and that the clerk of this court furnish to said commission
a certified copy of this judgment; and that the plaintiffs have and recover of
and from the defendant all their costs herein laid out and expended, for all of
which let execution issue.
The within is a true copy from the records of an order made by said court on
the 25th day of August, 1897.
[seal.] E. J. Fannin, CJcrk.
This is to certify that I am the oflficer having custody of the records pertain-
ing to the enrollment of the members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw. Cherokee,
Creek, and Seminole Tribes of Indians, and the disposition of the land of said
tribes, and that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a ** copy
of order of court,*' rendered on August 25, 1897, by William H. H. Clayton, judge
of the United States court, central district, Indian Territory, in case No. 116,
John Mitchell et al. r. Choctaw Nation.
J, Geo. Wright.
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes^
ByW. H. Angell,
Clerk in charge of Choctaw Records.
Muskogee, Okla., October 25, 1910.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
624 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBE8 IN OKLAHOMA.
CLASS 6.
The claimants in the following cases are minor children of enrolled
Indians whose names were omitted from the final roll, but who
were entitled to be placed thereon :
Josephine Laflore Long et al., Choctaw minor.
Dawes Commission, No. 872.
Forbis Long, father of these children, is enrolled opposite No.
16005 upon the approved roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw
Nation, and their sister, Francis Long, appears upon the approved
roll of minor Choctaws enrolled under the act of Congress of April
26, 1906, opposite No. 669.
RECORD. ,
July 17, 1906. Application made to the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes for enrollment as mincH* citizens of the Choctaw
Nation of Josephine Laflore Long, Francis Lcmg, and Jake Laflore
Long.
September 20, 1906. Proof of birth of Francis Lon^ completed
end child enrolled by Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
October 15, 1906. Enrollment of Francis Long approved by Sec-
retary of the Interior.
February 13, 1907. Proof of birth of Josaphine Laflore Lon^ and
Jake Laflore Long completed and children enrolled by Commissioner
to the Five Civilized Tribes.
March 1, 1907. Enrollment of Forbis Long, father of claimants,
canceled by Secretary of the Interior.
March 1, 1907. Enrollment of Josaphine Laflore Long and Jake
Laflore Long disapproved by the Secretary of the Interior.
March 4, 1907. Enrollment of Francis Long, sister of claimants,
canceled by Secretary of the Interior.
January 19, 1909. Forbus Long and Francis Long, father and
sister of claimants, restored to the roll by departmental authority
of January 19, 1909, in accordance with tne opinion of the United
States Supreme Court of November 30, 1908, in the Goldsby and
Allison cases.
March 1, 1909. Department requests report as to claimants.
April 17, 1909. Report to department snowing the facts set forth
above and stating that the applications for enrollment of these claim-
ants were made upon blanks prepared for that purpose ; that no for-
mal decision was prepared by the commission, but when the proof
of birth was complete the applications were approved and the names
4)f the claimants placed upon a schedule which was forwarded to the
department for approval as a part of the final roll ; that the proof
of birth of these claimants was not complete at the time their sister,
Francis Long, was enrolled by the commissioner and her enrollment
approved by the department, and their names were not forwarded at
that time for that reason.
Subsequent to February 13, 1907, when the names of these claim-
ants were transmitted for approval, the Secretary of the Interior had,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 625
in accordance with an opinion of the Attorney General of the United
States of February 19, 1907, in the William C. Thompson and Eichard
B.Coleman cases, on March 1,1907, canceled the enrollment of Forbis
Long^ father of claimants, and on March 4, 1907, the enrollment of
Fancis Long was canceled and that of these claimants disapproved
by the Secretary of the Interior.
When the names of Forbis Long and Francis Long, father and
sister of the claimants, were restored to the roll these claimants,
never having been upon the approved roll of citizens of the Choctaw
Nation, their names were not included in departmental instructions
of January 19, 1909.
August 25, 1909. Department held that this case was not analo-
gous to that of John E. Goldsby and did not come within the prin-
ciples announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in its
opinion of November 30, 1908, and that no action would be taken
looking to the enrollment of these claimants.
Counsel for claimants respectfully represent that Forbis Long, the
father of claimants, is enrolled on the approved roll of citizens by
blood of the Choctaw Nation, opposite Iso. 16005, and their sister,
Francis Long, is enrolled upon the approved roll of minor Choctaws
under the act of April 26, 1906, and that the following claimants are
in equity entitled to be enrolled as citizens of the Choctaw Nation:
Josaphine Laflore Long, Jake Laflore I^ng.
(Two in all.)
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
Department of the Interior,
Mmkoyee, Okla., Decemher 23, 1910.
In the mutter of the application for tlie enrollment of Xicey and Sidney Ari)ealer
as citizeiw by blooil of tbe Chickasaw Nation.
Proceedings had at McAlester, Okla., November 30, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney, Interior Deimrtment.
Appearances : M. M. LIndley, of McAlester, attorney for claimants ; McCurtain
& Hill, by B. P. Hill, for the Choctaw Nation; Rodgers & Clapp, by George D.
Rodgers, for the Chickasaw Nation.
Gilbert H. Abpealer, sworn and examined as a witness, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. Your name is Gilbert Arpealer, is It? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you a Choctaw Indian? — ^A. Chickasaw by blood.
Q. How much blood?— A. Full blood.
Q. Are you enrolled and been allotted? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your wife been enrolled and allotted? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have your children been enrolled and allotted? — A. No.
Q. Who enrolled you? — A. My father.
Q. Did he also enroll your wife, do you know? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. In that enrollment was any of your children left olT? — A. Yes; two.
Q. State tlieir names. — A. Nioey and Sidney.
Q. State the ages of each one; Nicey is the oldest, is she? — A. Yes.
Q. How old? — A. Seven last June.
Q. How old is the other one? — A. Five years old past.
Q. What is its birthday? — A. I>ast March It was Ti years old.
Q. These last two haven*t been enrolled and received no allotment? — A.
No, sir.
69282—13 40
Digitized by VjOOQIC
626 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
By Mr. Rodgebs:
Q. Did you ever go before the commission yourself, Gilbert, to enroll? —
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever go before tbe commission to select your allotment? — A-
No, sir.
Q. What was your fathers name? — A. Aaron Arpealer.
Q. He enrolled you and your wife? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your wife's name? — A. Martha Perry.
Q. At the time he enrolled you and your wife you didn't have any children,
did you? — A. Well, my wife's fjither was Charley Perry, and he enrolled her.
Q. At the time, then, that you and your wife were first enrolled you were
hot married, were you? — A. No; not married.
Q. Do you know the year that Nicey was bom? — A. Yes, sir.
g. What year was It?— A. Month of June. 1903.
Q. What day in June? Do you know the exact day? — A. Seventeenth.
Q. What year was the other child born in? — A. Bom March 20, 1905.
Q. Both of these children living now? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever make any attempt to enroll either one of these children? —
A. No, sir.
Q. What is the reason, Gilbert, that you never attemi)ted to enroll yoursell
or your children? — A. The other people told me to not enroll.
Q. You didn't believe In the enrollment — the allotment system — did you, at
that time? — A. The other people told me not to enroll.
Q. Some other people persuaded you not to do it? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Other Indians?— A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Hill :
Q. What year were you man-led, Gilbert?— A. 1902.
Q. Whereabouts? — ^A. Close to Ari)ealer ppst office.
Q. Who married you? — A. Old preacher named Alamus Williams.
Q. Your first child, you say, was born In 1903? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What doctor attended your wife at that time? — ^A. Didn't have no doc-
tor; we had two midwlvea
Q. Have you got your children here with you to-day? — ^A. No, sir.
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. You stated that your father's name was Aaron Arpealer? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he hold any office under the Choctaw Government during his lifetime;
and if so, what was it? — ^A. County Judge.
Q. State whether or not you held any office under the Choctaw Goyemment;
if so, what was It? — A. I used to be clerk.
Q. Clerk of what court? — A. Choctaw court — county court.
By Mr. Rodoebs:
Q. What are the names of these midwives that were with your wife wbea
this first child was bom? — ^A. Rena Orphan.
Q. And what is the other? — A. Dicey Hawkins.
Q. Did these same women attend your wife when the second child was
bora?— A. Ida Eddy.
Q. Ida Eddy was at the birth of the second child?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are all three of these women living?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Living down there in your neighborhood? — A. Yes, sir.
Counsel for claimants request that they be permitted to file affidavits of the
midwives who attended the mother of the children at the births.
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. Gilbert, what was your wife's name before she was married? — A. Martha
Perry.
Opposite No. 182 on the final roll of Chlckasaws by blood appears the name
of Gilbert H. Arpealer; 26; male; full blood; census card No. 58.
Q. Was your wife a full blood? — A. Half Choctaw and half Chickasaw.
Q. What roll was she put on— Choctaw or Chickasaw?— A. Chickasaw.
Opposite No. 4908 on the roll of Chlckasaws by blood is the name of Martha
Perry; 18; female; half blood; census card No. 108.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 627
Q. Do you know Albert Perry? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he any relation to your wife?— A. Brother.
The name of Albert Perry appears at No. 4909; same census card.
Q. What was her father's name?— A. Charley Perry.
Q. On the Choctaw or Chickasaw? — ^A. Chickasaw.
(Witness excused.)
Bew Albebbon, sworn and examined as a witness, testified as follows :
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. Do you know Gilbert Arpealer? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know his wife? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Do you know his family? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far do y6u live from them? — ^A. I live there at his house.
Q. How long have you known him? — ^A. All his life.
Q. Do you know his children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are their names? — ^A. The oldest one's Nicey and the second one
Sidney,, and the last baby Is Louisiana.
Q. Are they alive now? — A. Yes, sir; was alive this morning.
Q. Can you give me the ages of those children — Nlcey, for instance? — A. She'a
about 7 ; I think she was born In June, 1903, I believe — I am not positive.
Q. Thbat's the best of your recollection? — A. I think that's the best of my
recollection.
Q. Can you tell about when the other one was bom? — A. Sidney — I think
he's about 5 years old; I think he was bom in 1905; March, I reckon.
Q. Can you tell the month? — A. I think he was born in March.
Q. That is your best recollection? — A. Yea
Q. And you say these children are both alive? — A. Yes, sir; both alive.
Q. And do you know whether they have had allotments or not? — A. No, sir;
they haven't got on allotments: never even got no townsite money.
• Q. You are the Interpreter for the Indians in that neighborhood generally,
are you? — ^A. Yes, sir; they always send for me when they want interpreters.
I do the best I can for them.
By Mr. Rodgers:
Q. How long have you lived with (Ulbert, did you say? — A. I have lived with
him a long time.
Q. You lived with him when these children were bom? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And their mother, what is her name? — A. She was Martha Perry before
she married Gilbert Arpealer: she's Martha Arpealer now. Now. I can't remem-
ber the date or anything of that kind.
Q. But you were there and lived in the house at the time they were born,
were you? — A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. Lived there ever since? — A. Y^ sir.
By Mr. Rodqebs:
Q. How old is Louisiana? — A. She's about three now, I believe.
Mr. Lindley. We didn't bring tliat out because she's too young.
Mr. Rodgers. It is admitted she's too young?
Mr. Lindley. Yes.
Q. Do you remember who the midwife was that waited on Martha Arpealer
at the time of the birth of thwe children?— A. Mra Nelson and Rena Orphan
attended to her when this Nicey was bom, and when Sidney was l>orn Ida
Eddy was the one.
By Mr. Hlll :
Q. Ben, did Gilbert belong to this same society or association that you be-
longed to? — A. Yes, sir.
(Witness excused.)
Decehbee 1, 1910.
Ben Albebson, recalled, testified as follows :
By Mr. Lindley :
Q. You went home last night, the 30th of November, and you are here the
1st?— A. Yes, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
628 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. State why Gilbert Arpealer and his wife are not here. — ^A. His boy pretty
sick this morning and they didn't want to leave the child ; he was pretty sick,
Q. Gilbert himself wouldn't come, and of course his wife wouldn't come? — A.
No : they both didn't want to leave this boy Sidney, because he's pretty sick.
Q. Was you there at the house and know? — ^A. Yes, sir; I was right there;
I stay there ; I live with them.
Counsel for claimants ask permission to file aflSdavits of the midwife.
(Witness excused.)
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceedings
had in the above entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of his stenographic notes.
Albert O. MoMiixah.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of December, 1910.
R. P. Harbison,
Clerk United States Court,
By P. A. Harrison, Deputy.
Department of the Interior,
McAlester, Okla., December 9, 1910.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Nicey and Sidney Arpealer
as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
Proceedings had at McAIester, Okla., December 9, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney. Interior Department.
Appearances: M. M. Lindley, attorney for claimants; Rodgers & Clapp, by
George D. Rodgers, attorneys for the Chickasaw Nation.
Martha Arpealer, being first duly sworn nnd examined, testified, through
official interpreter, George Nelson, as follows:
By Mr. Pollock:
Q, What is your name? — ^A. Martha.
Q. Martha what? — A. Arpealer.
Q. How old are you? — A. I don't know.
Q. Are you a Choctaw Indian?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. FuU-blood?— A. No; not full-blood.
Q. Are you on the Choctaw roll? — A. I don't know which roll.
Q. Are you part Chickasaw?— A. Yes. sir; part Chickasaw.
Q. One-half Choctaw and one-half Chickasaw?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your husband's name?— A. Gilbert Arpealer.
Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the name of the oldest child?— A. Eliza.
Q. What Is the next oldest?— A. Sidney.
Q. Have you any other children? — A. Yes, sir; one.
Q. What is that child's name?— A. Lucy.
Q. How old is Lucy?— A. She is going on three years old.
Q. Is your oldest child named Nicey or Eliza?— A. Nicey.
Q. How old is Nicey?— A, Eight
Q. Do you remember what year she was bom in? — A. No, sir.
Q. When were you and Gilbert married?— A. About eight years ago.
Q. How long after you were married was Nicey bom? — A. Alwut one year.
Q. Did vou bring Nicey in with you to-day?— A. Yes, sir; she is here.
XoTE.— Nicey is present and appears to be a girl of 7 or 8 years of age.
Q. What is \he name of the next child?— A, Sidney.
Q. How old Is Sidney?— A. About 5 years old.
Q. When was Sidney 5 years old?— A. He was 5 in March.
Note.— Sidney is present and appears to be a boy of about 5 years of age.
Q. Did you make any record when these children were bora; write it in a
book? — A. I have no record.
Q. Who was there with you when Nicey was born? — A. Hena.
Q. Is she any relation of yours?— A. No relation.
. Q. Is she here to-day?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was with you when Sidney was bora? — A. Silva.^ ,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 629
Q. Is she here to-day?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is she any relation of yours? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Any relation to Gilbert?— A. Yes.
Q. What relation is she to himV— A. Gilbert's mother.
Q. What was your name before you married Gilbert? — A. Perry.
(Witness excused.)
Rena Orphan, being first duly sworn and examined through official Inter-
preter, George Nelson, testified as follows:
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. What is your name? — A. Rena Orphan.
Q. Do you know Gilbert Arpealer? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. And his wife?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present when the child was bom here? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that child's name? — A. Nlcey Arpealer.
Q. How old is Nicey?— A. She was bom January 17, 1905.
Q. That is the child that is here to-day?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know when the next child was bom, Sidney? — A. No, sir; I was
not there then.
Q. Are you related to George, or his wife, either one? — A. No. sir»
Q. You live neight>ors to them? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know that this boy, Sidney, is their child?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you don*t know when the child was bom? — ^A. No, sir.
(Witness excused.)
SiLVA Arpealer, being first duly sworn and examined through official inter-
preter, George Nelson, testified as follows:
By Mr. Pollock :
Q. What is your name? — A. Silva Ari)ealer.
Q. Are you the mother of Gilbert Arpealer? — A. Yes, sir.
• Q. Do you know when his boy, Sidney, was born? — A. Yes, sir; was there
at the time the boy was bom.
Q. Can you tell how long ago that was? — A. He will be C years old in
March next.
Q. How old was Nicey when Sidney was born? — A. Nicey was about 3 years
old because she is about 7 years old now.
(Witness execnsed; case closed.)
Lee G. Gmbbs, being first duly sworn, states that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of Ills stenograi)hic notes taken in said cause and said date above
mentioned.
Lee G. Grubbs.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 14th day of December, 1910.
R. P. Harrison, Clerks
By A. G. McMillan, Deputy,
Department of the Interior,
McAlester, Okla,, December 9, 1910.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Annie Ensharky as a
citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
Proceedings had at McAlester, Okla., December 9, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney. Interior Department.
Appearances: M. M. Lindley, attomey for claimant; Rodgers & Clapp, by
George D. Rodgers, attorneys for the Chicknsaw Nation.
Rena Orphan, being first duly swom and examined, testified as follows
through official interpreter, George Nelson.
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. What is your name?— A. Rena Orphan.
Q. Do you know a child named Annie Ensharky?— A. Yes, sir; she is here.
Q. Does she live with Gilbert Arpealer?- A. Yes, sir. , ^^^T^
Digitized by VjOOQ iC
630 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Do you know who her mother was? — Yes, sir.
Q. What was her name? — A. Sophia Arpealer.
Q. Do you know her father? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the father's name? — ^A. C. A. Ensharky.
Q. Do you know when the child was bom? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. About how old is she? — ^A. I ^ess she Is about 10 years old.
Q. Did Sophia and Ensharky live together when the child was bom? — A.
No, sir.
Q. They had separated? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did the child live with?— A. With Gilbert Arpealer.
Q. Sophia is dead?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she keep the child until she died? — A. Yes. sir.
Q. Then the child lived with her brother. Gilbert Arpealer? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. GUbert is the brother of Sophia?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Annie has been keitt by Sophia or some of her family all of the
time?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Never lived with her father? — A. No, sir.
(Witness excused.)
SiLVA Abpealeb, being first duly sworn and examined, testified as follows
through oQcial interpreter, George Nelson :
Q. What is your name? — A. Silva Arpealer.
Q. Do you know Annie BJnsharky? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was Annie's mother? — A. Sophia.
Q. Was Sophia your daughter? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Who was Sophia's father? — ^A. William Arpealer; but he is dead now.
Q. Who was Sophia's mother? — A. Sibbie; she has been dead long time.
Q. What was Annie Ensharky's father's name? — A. Edlow Sharkley.
Q. Where did he and Sophia live when they were married? — A. In the
Chickasaw Nation, near Wapanucka.
Q. Do you know when Annie was bom ? — A. I don't know, as I was not there,
but she was bom in March.
Q. Did Annie's father and Sophia live together when Annie was born? — A.
They lived in the Chickasaw Nation when Annie was bom.
Q. Did Sophia keep Annie with her until she died? — A. Yes, sir; lived with
her until she died.
Q. Has Annie lived with Sophia's people until the present time?— A. William
Arr^ealer got the child first and afterwnixis he left the child with (Jllbert; since
then the child has been living with Gilbert.
Q. Is this the child here [indicating! ?— A. Yes, sir.
Note. — The child appears to be about 10 years of age and of Indian blood.
(Case closed.)
Lee G. (irubbs. being first duly swom, states that the above and foregoing is
a tnie and correct copy of his stenographic notes taken in said cause and on
said date above mentioned.
Lee G. GfiUBBs.
Subscrlbetl and sworn to before me on this the IHth day of December, 1910.
R. P. Harrison. Clerk.
By A. G. McMillan. Deputy,
Dkpartment of the Interior,
MeAlcster, Okia,, Deeemher 9, 1910.
In the matter of the application for tlie enrollment of Buster Orphan as a
citizen by blood of the Chlektisnw Nation.
Proceedings had at McAlester, Okla.. December 9, 1910. before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney. Interior Department.
Api)earanceR: M. M. Llndley, attorney for claimant; Rodgera ^ Clapp, by
George D. Rodgers, attorneys for the Chickasaw Nation.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 631
SiLVA Arpealeb, being first duly sworn and examined, testified throngh
George Nelson, official Interpreter, as follows:
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. What is your name?— A. Silva Arpealer.
Q. Do you know Buster Orphan? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was Buster's father? — A. Levi Orphan.
Q. Who was Buster's mother? — A. Rena.
Q. Were you present when Buster was bom? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell how long ago that was? — ^A. About six years ago.
Q. Buster is dead now, is he? — A. He is dead.
Q. How Old was he when he died? — A. He was between 2 and 3 years old.
Q. How long has he been dead?— A. This boy died in September, but I don't
know whether it was two or three years ago.
(Witness excused.)
Rena Orphan, being first duly sworn and examine<i, testified through George
Nelson, official interpreter, as follows:
By Mr. Pollock :
Q. What is your name? — A. Rena Orphan.
Q. Are you the wife of I^vi Orphan? — A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a boy named Buster Orphan? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell when Buster was born? — A. April 13, 1903.
Q. Did you put down the date? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what kind of a book? Was it in writing? — A. Cookbook.
Q. Did you put it down in the cookbook yourself? — A. No, sir; I^vl did.
Q. How long has Buster been dead? — A. 1005.
Q. Have you got a book of Choctaw hymns? Didn't I^evi have that book with
him last week? — A. I guess not.
(Witness excused? case closed.)
Lee G. Grubbs, being first duly sworn, states that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of his stenographic notes taken In said cause and on said date
above mentioned.
Lee Q. (Jrubbs.
Subscribed and sworn to before mo on this, the 14th day of December, 1010.
R. P. Harrison, Clerk.
By A. G. McMillan, Dcpfity,
Department of the Interior,
Muskogee, Okla., December 23, tdlO,
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Buster Orphan as a
citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation.
Proceedings had at McAlestor. Okhi., November 30, 1010, before W. C. Pol-
lock, assistant attorney. Interior Department.
Appearances: Rodgers & Clapp, by George D. Rodgers. for the Chickasaw
Nation; McCurtain & Hill, by E. P. Hill, for the Choctaw 'Nation.
Gilbert H. Arpealer, sworn and examined as a witness, testified as follows:
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. Gilbert, do you know Buster Oi-phan? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was his father? — A. I^vi Orphan.
Q. Who was his mother? — A. Rena Orphan.
Q. What was her name before she was married? — A. Rena Folsom.
Q. Are either of them related to you?— A. I^evi; he's my half brother.
Q. Do you know how old Buster is?— A. He's over 5 years old.
Q. Buster is living now, is he?-^A. No: he's dead.
Q. How long since he died? — A. Been about two years.
Q. Can you give the date any closer than that, of his birth and death —
A. Died in the month of August.
Q. Two years ago? — A. Yes, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
632 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. And how old was he whon he died? — A. 3 years old when he died.
<}. Do you know in what month he was born? — A. Born in April.
Q. Can you tell the year?— A. In 1905.
Q. Is his father living?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he live? — A. He lives close to Arpealer post office.
Q. Is he here to-day. — A. No ; he*8 not here.
Q. Is Bu8ter*8 mother living? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were married, were they? — ^A, Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether any application was ever made for this child to be
enrolled? — A. I Just tell Mr. Howell about it when he was here.
By Mr. Rodgebs:
Q. Did Levi Orphan think the same way you did about the enrollment and
allotment? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. He didn't believe at that time In enrolling himself or his children? — A. I
guess he believed It, but he listened to the other people.
Q. He listened to the same people that you did? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, until Mr. Howell was down here, no application had ever been made
before the commission or any officer of the Government? — ^A. No.
By Mr. Hill :
Q. Whereabouts did Buster die? — ^A. He died at Levi's h6u8e, near Ari sealer.
Q. This county?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anybody ever file any application in the court here to be appointed
administrator of Buster's estate? — A. No, sir.
Q. Where was Buster born?— A. He was born at I^vl's house In this county.
Q. In this county?— A. Yes.
Q. Any record of his birth anywhere? — A. I think he's got one himself.
Q. Levi has one? — A. Yes.
Q. What is It In; what Is It; how does he keep that record? — A. Got It In a
book — song — Chocta w.
Q. In a Choctaw songbook? — ^A. Yes. •
Q. Who wrote It in there?— A. Himself.
Q. Is it written In Choctaw or English?— A. English.
Q. When was It written there? — ^A. Well, I don't know; I guess about the
year 1905.
Q. Is that book here? — ^A. No ; he's got It.
Q. Out there at home?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Levi here? — ^A. No; he's not here.
By Mr. Pollock:
Q. Gilbert, who was the leader of your band up there when the enrollment
was being made? — ^A. Well, just my father went up to Stonewall to enroll.
Q. Who Is the leading man up there now? — ^A. Charley Perry; he's the oldest
man.
(Witness excused.)
Bkn .Vlberson, sworn and examined as a witness, testified as follows:
By Mr. Pollock :
Q. Ben, do you know Buster Orphan? — ^A. Yes; I know him.
Q. What was his father's name? — ^A. Levi Oi^phan.
Q. What was his mother's name? — A. Rena Orphan.
Q. What was her name before she was married? — ^A. Folsom.
Q. Do you remember when Buster was bom? — ^A. No, sir; I do not. I hate
to say, because I don't know the exact date.
Q. Well, about how long? — A. If he was living I might know, but as to when
he died I just — I can't remember it now.
Q. How long ago did he die, Ben? — A. Why, I think about three years ago.
Q. Can you tell about how old he was when he died? — A. I think he was
about 4 then — 4 or 5 ; I don't know which — when he died.
Q. Is Levi Orphan, his father, living? — A. Yes, sir; he's living.
Q. Does he live in the simie neighborhood you do? — ^A. Yes, sir; close to
where I live.
Q. Is the mother living? — A. Yes, sir: she's living.
Q. You lived there close to them while Buster was living, did yon? — ^A.
Yes, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 633
Q. You were there when he was born and died, both? — A. Yts, sir. I don't
remember the date, but I reckon they got a record at home ; they always write
it down when they were born and died. They got it ; I Icnow they got it.
Q. Well, did' you say anything to them atK)ut coming in here to-day? — ^A.
Well, Lindley was telling us about it when we were here last, and I told them
about it, but they went hunting on the Canadian and said they would \ye back
to-day, and if we wanted them they could come to-morrow.
Q. You tell Levi to come down with his wife and bring that record with
them. — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know who was the midwife when Buster was born? — A. I do not.
Q. And if they can bring the midwife, bring her, too? — A. All right.
(Witness excused.)
December 1, 1910.
Appearances: M. M. Lindley, attorney for claimant; D. C. McCurtain, for the
Choctaw Nation.
Levi Orphan, sworn and examined as a witness, testified as follows, partly
through George Nelson, official Choctaw interpreter:
By Mr. Tollock:
Q. What is your name? — A. Levi Orphan.
Q. Are you a member of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians? — A. Yes.
Q. How much blood have you? — A. Full blood.
Q. How old are you? — A. Next March be 41.
Q. Are you married? — A. Yes.
Q. What is your wlfe*s name? — ^A. Rena Orphan.
Q. Is she a full-blood Chickasaw? — A. Half Choi»tnw and half Chickasaw.
Q. Is she on the Choctaw or Chickasaw rolls? — ^A. Chickasaw rolls.
Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes.
Q. How many? — A. Six living.
Q. Are all these children on the rolls? — A. Not all on the roll.
Q. How many have you that are not on the roll? — A. Four In all not on the
roll — two living and two dead.
Q. Now, what Is the name of the oldest of those four? — A. Rena Orphan is
the oldest of those four.
Q. Is Rena living? — A. No; dead.
Q. Can you tell when Rena was bom? — A. (Witness presents a book from
which he reads:) Rena was bom May 8, 1903.
Q. When did Rena die? — A. 1905; I don't rememl>er what month; I think it
was February.
Q. Now, what is the name of the next oldest? — A. Buster Orphan.
Q. When was Buster boro?--A. April 13, 1905.
Q. Buster is still living, is he?— A. Dead.
Q. When did Buster die?— A. September 7, 1908.
Q, The next of those four children was bom after Buster? — A. Yes.
Q. And after March 4, 1906?— A. Yes.
Q. What is that book you have been looking at the dates in? — ^A. That's a
song book— hymns — Choctaw.
Q. Who wrote these names and dates in hero? — A. Myself.'
Q. When did you write Buster's name in here? — A. Same day the child
was bom.
Q. Were you and your wife married under the Chickasaw law? — ^A. Yes.
Q. Were you married by a preacher? — A. Yes; preacher Compalabee.
Q. Who was with your wife when Buster was born? — A. Susan Brown.
Q. Is she still living?— A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever made any application for Buster to be enrolled? — A. I
never did.
Q. Why didn't you apply for him before this? — ^A. I didn't know anything
about this going to be done is the reason 1 didn't apply.
Br. Mr. Lindley:
Q. Did you ever make application for the enrollment of any of your
children?— A. Two.
Q. How many have you enrolled all together and got allotments? — ^A. Five
on the rolls.
Q. Who enrolled those five that you have got on the rolls? — A. I did myself,
at Stonewall.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
634 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. At that time Buster wasn't born, at the time you enrolled tlie rest of
them? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Can you give the date of the enrollment of the five? — A. No; don't re-
member.
Q. They all got land, did they?— A. Yes.
Note. — The book produced by the witness is entitled "Choctaw Hymns"
jiiMl has an entry on the first page — ** Buster Ori>han, April 13, 1905/'
Witness is advised that the Secretary of the Interior can not enroll the child
for whom application is made, unless Congress passes a law authorizing its
enrollment
(Witness excused.)
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceed-
ings had in the above entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of his stenographic notes.
Albert G. McMillan.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of December, 1910.
R. P. Harrison,
Cflerk United States Court.
By P. A. Harrison, Deputy.
Department of the Interior,
Muskogee, Okla., December 21, 1910.
In the mntter of the jippllcation for the enrollment of Peggie Coker as a citizen
by blood of the Choctaw Nation.
Proceedings had at McAlester, Olsla., December 16, 1910, before C. F. Bliss,
supervising district agent.
Appearances: Peggie Coker is representee! by her attorney, M. M. Llndley,
of McAlester, Okla.; McCurtaln & Hill, by D. C. McCurtaln, attorneys for
Choctaw Nation.
Peggy Coker, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lindlxt:
Q. State your name, please. — A. Peggie Coker. I was a Mc(5ee l>efore I
was married, but now my name is Coker.
Q. How old are you? — A. Well, I reckon I am about 70 years old.
Q. Where do you live?— A. I live at Dow, 6kla., No. 9.
Q. How long have you been living In the Territory? — A. I have been living
in the Territory for years; first one place, then another. After my mother
died, I Just lived around — awhile at Hartshorn, then at Wllburton, and then
other places.
Q. About how many years have you lived in the Territory, can you tell? —
A. I have been living in the house I now live in for nine yeara We are paying
$7 a month for the house, and we have been living right in that same iHace
for nine years.
Q. Did you ever live any place outside of the Territory? — A. No, sir.
Q. You have lived here all your life, have you? — A. Yes. sir; just lived
around from one place to another.
Q. State the name of your father. — A. Humphrey McGee.
Q. What nation was he — to what Indian tribe did he belong? — A. To the
Chickasaw.
Q. Where did he live? — A. Lived In the nation, in tiie Chickasaw Nation.
Q. State what place — near what town? — ^A. You know I don*t have no educa-
tion, I was taking care of my children and traveling around from place to
place.
Q. Do you know how much Indian blood your father had? — A. I don't know
how much he had — I can't tell you how much he had — he was a Chickasaw
Injira. That's all I know.
Q. Now state the name of your mother. — A. Eunice McGee.
Q. To what tribe of Indians did she belong? — A. To the Choctaw.
Q. Where did she live? — A. In the nation; she was buried over here on the
Canadian River.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED rKIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 635
Q. How long has she been dead? — ^A. Lord! I don*t know; she has been
dead 30 years, and maybe 40 years.
Q. Do you know whether or not her name is on the rolls of the nation? —
A. I don't know whether it is or not. but I know I have been putting In a long
time trying to be put on the roll. I have been putting in about seven or eight
yeara
Q. Now state what efforts you have made to liave yourself enrolled as a
member of the tribe. — A. Well, I have had two or three lawyers and I have been
to Muskogee three different times, and the last time I was there I went to the
oommissloner and he slapped his hand down on the table and said, ** Your land
is here and your money is here, but the rolls are closed and you can't get it."
Q. Have you any brothers or sisters? — ^A. No, sir; I have got no brothers
and sisters — they are all dead; but I have got four children — four daughters-
living.
Q. State the name of your oldest child. — A. My oldest daughter is Maryann
Coker; her name is now Maryann Smotherman.
Q. Has she any children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Give their names, beginning with the name of the oldest one. — A. Well,
there is Frank Coker; he is by her first husband; and the other child is by her
second husband, Smotherland.
Q. What are their names? — ^A. Perry Smotherland and
Q. How old is he; do you know? — A. I just can't tell you.
Q. About how old? — A. I can't tell you exactly how old.
Q. Well, about how old? — A. I guess he's 23 or 24.
Q. What is the name of the next one? — A. Catherine; that is his sister —
Perry's sister.
Q. Is she married? — A. No, sir.
Q. About how old is she? — A. Going on 21.
Q. What is the name of your next child? — A. My next child is my son Andrew.
• Q. Has he any children? — A. He is dead.
Q. Well, has he any children ? — A. Yes, sir ; he has three children.
Q. What are their names? — A. George, Andrew, and Mary.
Q. How old is (ieorge? — A. About 18 or 19 years old.
Q. How old is this second one? — A. The other two are younger.
Q. What is the name of the third child?— A. My third child? •
Q. Yes. — A. Roxie Ward ; she is the mother of six children.
Q. Give the name of the oldest one. — ^A. Henry.
Q. How old is Henry? — A. I don't know; mabye about 25 or 30 years old.
Q. What is the name of the next one? — A. They always called him ** Son."
His name is — I don't know. I^et's see what is his name. There are so many of
them I have forgot.
Q. What is the name of the third one? — A. I will tell you now in a minute.
Quint Presley: she lives in South Town.
Q. That is a girl?— A. Yes. sir.
Q. What is the name of the next one? — A. Now. what is that child's name
Q. How old is Quint? — A. I don't know exactly how old she is. You know,
there Is a generation of them.
Q. You stated that there are six in all? — A. Yes, sir. No, sir; she aint got
but three. I am talking about Quint Presley; fiie has got three children — two
t>oys and one girl.
Q. Do you know about the children of the rest of them — the older ones? — A.
No. sir.
Q. Give me the nnnie of your next child? — A. Emeline Cottonham.
Q. How many children has Emeline Cottonham? — A. Six living children.
Q. Can you give their names? — A. No. sir; I can't give all their names.
Q. How many can you think of — do you know the oldest one? — A. The
oldest one is named Henry ; then there is Hubert and Reynolds and Willie and
Miller and Devie — they always called her Devie.
Q. That is a girl? — A. Yes, sir; this Quint Presley Is her daughter, and llvet
in McAlester.
Q. Well, now yon sjiid you had six children? — A. Yes, sir; I have got three
dead and four living.
Q. Well, now give me the name of the fifth one? — A. My next daughter Is —
her name is Mandny SInnns. She aInt living now though; she died after she
was married.
Q. Did Mandy Slmnis leave any children? — A. Three.
Q. What are their names? — A. Margaret, Andrew, and George.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
636 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. How old is the oldest one? — ^A. About 25 years old.
Q. Do you know the ages of the other ones? — ^.\. No, sir.
Q. They are younger? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now. give me the name of the sixth child — that is five — the last one is
Margaret? — ^A. Margaret, and then Henry — Margaret, Andrew, and Henry.
Q. Did Andrew have any children ?-^A. He wasn't married.
Q. Is he living?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he live? — ^A. Somewhere in Alabama ; I don't Icnow where.
Q. The last one is Henry and George; where is George? — A. I don't know
where he is; I haven't seen him for nine years.
Q. Now, with reference to your children, how many of them live in the
Territory? — A. Four of them ; the balance married and lit out, and I don't know
where they went to. >
Q. Which four live in the Territory? — A. Mary Ann, Perry, and George, and
Andrew ; they have been living in the Territorj'. and their grandchildren, and
the girls they married, and some went to one place and some to another.
Cusanna Coker is my baby daughter.
Q. She liven here? — ^A. Yes; she tends to all my business for me; lives with
me and takes care of me.
Q. Has she got any children? — A. She's got two sons and one daughter.
Q. Where does she live? — ^A. I Jves in the house with me.
Q. Where is that?— A. At Dow, at No. 9; the children live right there with
me. I couldn't live without her. I couldn't tend to my business, and she looks
after everything for me.
Q. Have you been sick a good deal and not able to attend to yonr own
business? — A. Yes, sir: for three years she took care of me, and even picked
me up and laid me on the bed.
Q. Now, as you remember it, you have given the names of your children
and grandchildren, except the children of Mrs. Tucker, and she gave in those
herself? — A. Yes, sir. *
Q. When did you make application l>efore the Dawes Commission at Musko-
gee?— A. About three yeni-s ago. I have made It there three times. It has been
longer than that.
Q. How long has it been? — ^A. I don't know.
• Q. Can you fix the time by years? — A. No. sir; I can't exactly tell you, but
I went to Muskogee three times. I went before a man on the tlilrd story and
be said he couldn't do anything for me.
Q. Well, I want to know when that was? — A. It has l>een three or four
years ago.
Q. Who went with you? — A. My daughter and Mr. Perry from South Town
and this old gentleman that lives out here in the country. I can't think of his
name — Oh, yes; McKlnney.
Q. That was the last time you went? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was over three years ago? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the time before that? — A. I can't exactly tell you, but I have
been there three times.
Q. Well, I am trying to fix the date. — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how long before? — A. I can't exactly tell you.
Q. As near as you can. — ^A. I just can't tell you.
Q. When was the first time you went there? — ^.\. I went before Mr. Llndley
the first time, and then I had letters from the — I can't give his name.
Q. Have you got those letters now? — ^A. I have got that many [indicating]
at home.
Q. From the Dawes Commission? — A. Yes, sir; and from Washington.
Q. Will you send those letters in? — ^A. I was ordered to go to Muskogee, and
when I went and talked to the Dawes commissioner, and had all my witnesses
there, and spent $27 of my money, and he slapped his hand on the table, and he
said •• Your money Is here and your land is here, but you can't get it. the rolls
are closeil." and I walked out. I says, " Well, if I don't get it before I die, I
would leave plenty of kin to fight for it after I was dead."
Q. How did you apply? — A. Well, I told him what letters I had and all about
it — that was all I could do.
Q. Did you say your mother was a full-blood Choctaw? — A. Yes, sir; a full-
blood Choctaw, and my father was a Chickasaw.
Q. Did your mother raise you? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 637
Q. How long did you live with your mother V — ^A. I can't exactly tell you
how long.
Q. Can you 8i)eak the Choctaw language? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Your mother was a full-blood Choctaw, you said? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she talk the Choctaw language? — ^A. Yes, sir; and she talked to me,
but I couldn't understand what she was saying.
Q. She didn't talk English to you?— A. No, sir; I never did try to talk
Choctaw.
By Mr. McCurtain:
Q. I wish you would please remove that shawl and ' handkerchief from your
head, please? — A. Yes, sir. I use lo have more hair than anyl>ody, but it has
nil fell out.
Q. If you made application over three years ago there was a record made of
your application at that time, wasn't there? — ^A. Yes, sir; it has been six years.
Q. It has been six years since you first made application? — ^A.'Yes, sir; I
think it has.
Q. And at that time you made application to the Dawes Commission? — ^A.
Yes, sir.
We want the record to show that we object to the consideration of this case
or any of the testimony offered, for the reason that it appears from the wit-
ness's own statements that this is an adjudicated case.
Q. Did you apply to be enrolled as a Choctaw or Chickasaw or as a Choc-
taw or Chickasaw freedman? — A. I don't know anything about freedmen. I've
never been a slave — nobody never owned me.
Q. Did your daughters marry white men? — ^A. Yes, sir; both of them is
married — just about half white.
Q. What is the other half ?— A. Injun.
Q. Have they applied for enrollment to your knowledge? — A. No, sir.
Q. Are any of your daughters' husbands been enrolled? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did they ever apply for enrollment that you know of? — A. No, sir.
Q. If they are one-half Indian, as you say, why didn't they apply for en-
rollment?— A. I don't know.
Q. Have your daughters ever made application for enrollment? — A. No, sir.
Q. Whv not? — A. Well, everything got so dull in this country it looked like
it was no use, but I thought I would see If I could get it.
Note. — Examine the records of the Dawes Coumiission as to application of
Peggie Coker.
Q. Do you know of anyone now living who knew your mother? — A. Sir?
, Q. Do you know of anyone now living who knew your mother? — ^A. There is
a man in there (referring to adjoining rooml who knows all my folks. He is
kin to me. My mother died and Is buried on the Canadian River. He is kin
to me and knows a great many of my people.
Q. When you applied for the enrollment of yourself, did you apply for the
enrollment of any of your children you have named In our testimony? — ^A. I
didn't at that time.
Q. You did not?— A. No, sir.
Q. Why not? — ^A. He didn't give me the chance. When I was ordered to
Muskogee he just told me
Q. You say you were ordered to Muskogee; how were you ordered there? —
A. I was ordered by the fellow — I can't never call his name.
Q. The Secretary of the Interior? — A. Yes, sir ; that's the fellow.
Q. Did he write you a letter? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you got that letter? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you file that letter In this case?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. This gentleman that you spoke of, did he know your father? — A. Sir?
Q. This gentleman that you six)ke of, did he know your father? — A. He knows
a great many of my people, but he didn't know my fatherland mother.
By Mr. Lindley :
Q. All of these people that you said went to Muskogee with you when you
went up there, you took as witnesses? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, could your mother talk any English at all? — A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not your case that you spoke of, as being about
six year's ago, was ever presented to the Dawes Commission? — A. Yes, sir; I
went to Muskogee. I was sent for by the Secretary of the Interior.
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
©38 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Did you make applJcation at that tinieV-rA. I made It, but they turned
me down. They — he put his hand on the table and he said your money is
here
Q. Did he ask you any questions? — ^A. I suppose so.
Q. Did you testify as to your mother and father? — A. He dlpirt question me
about that.
Q. Well, you went there for the puriJOse of making a record, but none was
made? — No, sir; he wouldn't let me have it.
Q. Well, now, did Mrs. Tucker go with you for the purpose of making a
record? — A. Yes, sir; and Mr. Perry and this oid gentleman — I called his name
a while ago
Q. McKlnney? — A. Yes, sir; and they wouldn't let us in the house.
By Mr. Bliss :
Q. When were you bom? — A. I was bred and bom In the Territory.
Q. Around in this country? — A. Yes, sir; tn the Territory.
Q. Your father and mother were living here at that time? — A. Yes, sir; and
then they died and left me alone.
Q. Did you ever live at any i)lace outside of this Indian country? — ^^V. No, sir;
nowhere else.
Q. Did you ever participate in any of the payments made by the tribal au-
thorities of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations? — A. No, sir; I never did get
a thing.
Q. You never drew any money? — A. None.
Q. Did you ever attempt to draw any when they were making these pay-
ments?— A. I made a claim, but I didn't get anything.
Q. I was referring to the old tribal payments? — ^A. No, sir.
Q. Did your husband ever draw any money from the Choctaw or Chickasaw
Nation? — A. No, sir.
Q. Was your hustmnd recognized as a citizen of the Choctaw or Chickasaw
Nation? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What degree of blood was he? — A. One-half blood.
Q. Your husband? — A. Y'es, sir.
Q. Has he been dead a long time? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say you have four children living and three dead? — A. Yes, sir; fbur
daughters living and two sons and one daughter dead.
Q. Give' me the names of your three deceased children. — ^A. Andrew, Miller,
tnd Mandy Coker.
Q. How long has Andrew Coker been dead? — A. About 13 or 14 years.
Q. How long has Miller Coker been dead? — A. About 16 years. •
Q, How long has Mandy been dead? — A. About 11 years.
Q. Now give me the names of your children who are living. — A. Cusanna
Tucker.
Q. What is her post-office address?— A. Dow, Okla., No. 9.
Q. Give me the name of your next one. — ^A. My oldest daughter Is Eimeline
Cottonbam.
Q. Where does she live? — A. I can't exactly say.
Q. I want her post-office address; you know that, don't you? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. W611, what is it?— A. l>ow. And the next daughter is Mary Ann Smother-
land.
Q. Where does she live?— A. Somewhere In Alabama. And the next one is
Hanar Davis.
Q. Where does she live? — ^A. I can't tell you. Cusanna lives in the house
with me, or I live with her.
Q. You stated that neither you nor your husband nor your children to your
knowledge have ever been recognized by the tribal authorities in any of the
tribal payments; Is that right?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you living. Auntie, when they first began to make allotments
of these lands? — A. 1 have always lived in the Territor>\
Q. Do you remember when they first began this work?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you made application before that time for enrollment?- A. It has
b^n six years.
Q. After you made that first application did they have a hearing any place?—
A. Yes, sir ; I had a hearing from Washington often.
Q. I mean was the case heard as we are hearing this case this morning, and
^ou were allowed to introduce testimony?- A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where? — A. In South Town ; right here, before Mr. Lindley.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 639
Q. Who was Mr. Lindley? — A. That was a lawyer.
Q. I refer to an officer of the^GovernmentV — A. Sir?
Q. Did you ever go before a Government officer and testify? — A. No, sir.
Q. Then, this Is the lirst time you bare ever testltled befor the Department of
the Interior in regard to your claim V — A. No, sir; I have been liefore them
twice.
Q. I mean to testify as you are testifying this morning. Have you ever given
testimony before the Department of the Interior before this morning? — A. Yes,
sir; before Mr. Lindley.
Q. Mr. Lindley wasn't a representative of the Interior Department, was he? —
A. He said he was. I paid him |10 to put it through.
Q. Did he tell you he was a representative of the Interior Deiwrtment, or did
he tell you he was representing you before the Interior Department? — A. That
is what he said he would do.
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. When you gave the name Cusanna Coker, did you mean Cusanna
Tucker? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you api)eared before that Mr. Lindley, he was a lawyer, was he
not? — A. It has been about six yeai*s ago and I don't remember much about It.
Q. Prior to that time you had secured the services of a lawyer at Muskogee
or some other place, hadn't you*/ — A. No, sir; I just starte<l In to see if I
could get anything — I know 1 ought to have something and I haven't got
nothing
Q. Did Mr. Lindley draw up some impers for youir — A. Yes, sir; and I
signed them.
By Mr. McCubtain :
Q. Is this the gentleman that you went before — the Mr. Lindley — Is this him
here? — A. I don't know; I have been before so many of them I have got them
all mixed up.
By Mr. Bliss :
Q. Have you any relatives who have had allotments made to them as citi-
zens of the Choctaw or Chickasaw Nation? — A. I have got some old gentleman
In there ; he has got land allotted to him.
Q. What relation Is he to you? — A. He Is a cousin of my husband.
Q. What Is his name? — A. I don't remember the man's name.
Q. He is the only one that you remember now who has been allotted land
and who Is related to you? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you don't remember his name? — A. He don't have a name like other
folks, and I can't think of It.
(Witness excused.)
Peteb Benton, being first duly sworn, testified as follows through Mack Mc-
Curtain, sworn interpreter.
By Mr. Bliss:
Q. What is your name? — A. Peter Benton.
Q. How old are you'/ — A. About 56.
Q. What is your iwst-offlce address? — A. Alderson.
Q. Are you acquainted with this woman here? — A. I have known her about
two years.
Q. Are you related to her? — A. No relation.
Q. You didn't know her before they began the allotment of these lands? — A.
I never did know her until about three years ago.
By Mr. Lindley :
Q. Did you know the McGees? — ^A. I knew one of them, Humphrey McGee.
Q. Did you know his wife — what was the name of his wife? — A. I saw him
about once when I was a boy.
Q. Was Humphrey McGee an Indian? — A. Part Choctaw and part Chickasaw.
Q. What was his wife? — ^A. I suppose she was a white woman. I don't think
she talked the Choctaw. There use to be a good many Mc<«ees, and I use to
see them when I was a boy.
Q. Are you sure that Humphrey McGee's wife was a white woman? — A. I
don't know for sure.
Q. Did you know any of the children? — A. I didn't know any of the children;
I was young. ,
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
640 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. What relation are you to Humphrey McGee? — ^A. I was related to some
of the McGees, but not to him.
Q. Any of the ones that you were related to — were any of them related to
this family of McGees here? — A. Yes; I was related to Alex McGee, who was
the father of Humphrey.
Mr. McCuRTAiN. We move to strike this testimony from the record for the
reason that it is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial and in no way con-
ne<ts the applicant with the McGees about which the witness testified.
(Objection noted.)
Mr. LiNDLteY. I protest apiinst the motion for the reason that the parties
named by the applicant and the witness are the same persons and are shown
to be Indians by blood and relatives of the witness.
(Witness excused.)
Peggie Coker, bein^ recalled, testified as follows :
By Mr. Bliss :
Q. Is this the man you referred to, Peggie, as the man who Is related to
you and who has an allotment? — ^A. Yes, sir.
(Witness excused.)
Peter Benton, being recalled, testified as follows:
By Mr. Lindlky :
Q. Are you enrolled and received an allotment? — A. Yes, sir.
(Witness excused.)
QuiNTON Presley, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. Bliss:
Q. What Is your name? — A. Qulnton Presley.
Q. How old are you? — A. I don't know Just exactly how old I am.
Q. What Is your post-office address? — A. South McAlester.
Q. About how old are you? — A. I guess I am about 30 years old.
Q. What Is the name of your mother? — A. Emellne Cottonham.
Q. What Is the name of your father? — A. Bill Cottonham.
Q. Are you acquainted with Peggie CJoker? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known her? — A. Ever since I have been bom.
Q. Peggie Coker Is your grandmother? — A. Yes. sir.
Q, Since you have known her has she lived continuously in the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. What Is your mother's name? — A. Emellne Cottonham.
Q. And she was Peggie Coker's daughter? — ^A. Yes, sir; that's what they say.
Q. Do you remember your mother? — A. Yea, sir.
Q. What degree of Indian blood do you claim? — A. I don't know whether I
claim any. but both my mother and grandmother is Indian.
Q. Any Indian blood that you may have would come through your mother and
your grandmother, Peggie Coker?— A. Yes, sir.
By :Mr. Lindi^y :
Q. Have you any children? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Give the name of the oldest one. — A. Dan Presley.
Q. How old Is he?— A. About 17.
Q. What Is the name of the next one? — ^A. Julius Presley.
Q. How old is he?— A. About 15.
Q. What is the name of the next one? — A. Willie May, a girl.
Q. How old Is she?— A. Fourteen years old.
Q. Do they all live with you?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. In McAlester?— A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you lived in McAlester? — A. I have been here for 19 years,
Q. How long have you been In the Territory? — A. All my life — I go to Texas
sometimes on a visit.
By Mr. McCuRTAiN :
Q. Your mother living? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does she live? — A. Somewhere near Wildcat. I don't know exactly
the post ofiSce.
Q. You didn't know anything about having a claim to Indian rights until
your grandmother made this application? — ^A. No, sir.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 641
Q. When did yow first henr about that? — A. Well, it was Jonj? in 11)07 I was
informed.
Q. That was the first you heard about it? — A. Yes, sir; l)ut I didn't liuow
how to get up to the matter.
Q. Is your father living? — A. No, sir; he is dead.
Q. Was your father a white man? — A. Yes, sir; a white man.
Q. Are you married now? — A. Yes, sir.
(}. What is the name of your husband? — ^A. Turner Presley.
Q. Is he a white man? — A. No, sir; mixed.
Q. Mixed with what?— A. I don't know; he is pretty dark.
Q. Is he part colored man? — A. I don't know whether he is or not.
By Mr. Lindlf.y:
Q. You desire to have your ai>i)llcation for enrollment considered, do you? —
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Buss:
Q. You have known ever since you wen» old enough to understand that Peggie
Coker was your grandmother? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were told that you had Indian blood? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. When were you told? — A. I don't know; It was some years ago, birt I
didn't know thei'e was any chance for n»e to get an allotment.
Q. Wei»e you ever pecognized In any way by the tribal authorltl^? — A. Xq,
sir.
Q. Did you ever draw any money? — A. No, sir.
Q. Did your mother? — A. No, sir; not to nty knowlo<lge.
(Witness excused.)
CusANNA TucKKR, bclug first duly sworn, testified as -follows:
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. ^tsLie your name. — A. Cusiinna Quicker.
Q. You gave testimony in this case last Friday, the 9th? — ^A. Yes, s^lr.
Q. You were representing your mother at that time? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you heretofcu'e represented her In citizenship matters? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether you were with her before ^I. M. Lindley, an attorney of
South McAlester. — A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what was your puriwse in api)earing at his office. — A. I was tolfl
that Mr. Llnflley was working for the Ga\'ernment or wire recognized a« a Gov-
ernment lawyer, and it has been about six years ago. I made some testimony
to iilm.
Q. Did you simply employ him as an attorney to go before ti>e l^an'>e8 Cora-
mlRsion and secure a hearing? — A. T-es, sir.
Q. Isn't that all you done with Wr. TJndley, make some atidavlts and teeti-
moity and arrjmgements for him to take the case before the Dawes Commis-
sion?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who stated to you that he 'was a (government attorney? — ^A. Some person
in his office, but 1 dlsremenlber who it was. He had a diploma hanging there
in his office.
Q. Mr. Lindley didn't claim to be a Government attorney, did he? — ^A. I don't
know what he did say he was.
Q. You just employed and made a contract with him to represent your case
before the Dawes Commission? — A. Yes, sir.
< Witness excusetl. )
Mr. Bliss. Mr. Lindley, you will furnish the letters rt*feiTed to l>y Peggie
Coker, will you?
Mr. Lindley. I will fu^li^*h all but one. The last notice they had to api>ear
was on December 9. and this was turned over to Judge Pollock.
Vester W. Rose, being first duly sworn, states that the al)ove and foregoing is
a correct and complete transcript of his stenographic notes taken In the above
matter on the date therein mentioned.
Vester W. Rose.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 24th day of December, 1910.
R. P. Harrison,
Cicrk United Htnles Court.
♦ By A. G. McMillan, Deputy.
69282—13 41
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
642 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The following record was submitted by Ballinger & Lee:
Department of the Interior,
Miifikogrr, Okla., December 8, 1910.
In the matter of the application for the enrollment of Sallle Colbert as a minor
Chickasaw by blood.
Proceedings had at McAlester, Okla.. December 1, 1910, before W. C. Pollock,
assistant attorney. Interior Department.
Appearances: M. M. Lindley, of McAlester, attorney for claimant; McCur-
tain & Hill, by D. C. McCurtain, attorneys for Choctaw Nation.
Edmon Colbert, being duly sworn and examined as a witness, testified as
follows:
By Mr. Pollock :.
Q. What Is your name? — A. Edmon Colbert
Q. Where do you live? — ^^\. Reydon; used to be Guertle.
Q. How old are you? — I enrolled 30 years old in 1903; about 38 years old, I
reckon.
Q. What roll are you on? — ^A. Well. I don't know; I am Chickasaw.
Q. How much Indian blood have you? — A. Well, I don't know; on the roll as
full blood.
Q. What is your wife's name? — A. Martha.
Q. Is she a Chickasaw?— A. She's Chickasaw.
Q. Full blood?— A. Well, I can't say.
Q. When were you married? — A. Well, I don't know what time we ever did
get married ; it's been a long time since.
By Mr. Lindley:
Q. How many years? — A. Well, I couldn't say; I don't want to tell anything
I don't know.
By Mr. Pollock :
Q. How many children have you? — ^A. Got five.
Q. Are any of them on the rolls? — A. Yes; all but»two; one died and one
living.
Q. What is the name of the one that died? — ^A. One named Isaac.
Q. He Is the one that died? — ^A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was he bom? — A. Well, I don't know really what date it was; I
never paid no attention to it
Q. Was he bom after the others were enrolled? — ^A. No; before the others.
Q. Had he died before the others were enrolled? — ^A. Yes.
Q. Had he died l)efore 3902? — A. It was along there somewhere when he died
Q. Did you make any application for him to be enrolled? — ^A. No; never did
make no application. They always said wasn't no use.
Q. Now, what is the other child's name not on the roll? — A. Sallle.
Q. When was Sallle born?— A. 1905.
Q. What month?— A. October 28.
Q. How do you remember the date that Sallie was born? — A. We went out to
play a ball game out in the country.
Q. You fix the time of her birth by that?— A. Yes.
Q. Is Sallle still living?— A. Yes; she's living to-day.
Q. You didn't bring her in with you? — ^A. No; I was out here, and I jurt
heard about it. and I just came over to see how it was, and I thought I wonid
come on when I heard it; I didn't want to get left out
Q. You didn't leave home, then, to come in here and make an application? —
A. No.
Q. What midwife waited on your wife when Sallie was born?— A. Lizzie
Lewis.
Q. Is she still living?— A. Yes, sir; mother-in-law of mine.
Q. Your wife's mother?— A. Yes.
By Mr. MoCubtain :
Q. Sallie is living yet, is she?- A. Yes; she's living.
Mr. McCurtain. Well, I suggest, if you are going to take the statement «f
the midwife, that the midwife be brought before Mr. Brink, and at the same
time let the child be produced. , ^^^.^
Digitized by VjOOv VC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 643
It is agreed to by all parties in interest that the additional evidence to be
taken in this case shall be heard at the office of District Agent Brink on Friday,
December 9.
By Mr. Pollock :
Q. Did you make any record when this child Sallie was bom? — ^A. No; I
didn't keep anything of that kind. When we file them that is all the recoixls
of any kind that we ever had.
(Witness excused.)
On Chickasaw card No. 287 appears the names of Edmon Colbert, his wife,
Martha, and their two children, Joshua and Ben Colbert, opposite final ap-
proved roll Nos. 903, 4569, 904, and 4570, respectively.
On Chickasaw newborn card No. 35 (act of Mar. 3, 1905) appears the name
of Holman Colbert, opposite roll No. 27, child of Edmon and Martha Colbert.
On Chickasaw minor card No. 236 (act of Apr. 26, 1906) appears the name
of Selina Colbert, opposite roll No. 154, child of Edmon and Martha Colbert.
Albert G. McMillan, being duly sworn, states that he reported the proceedings
had. in the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of his stenographic notes.
Ajlbebt G. McMillan.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of December, 1910.
Habbt Montague, Votary Public,
State of Oklahoma, Pittsburg County^ ss:
Martha Colbert states that she Is 38 years of age; that she is one of the
legal heirs of John Lewis, deceased, being a daughter; that her said father,
John Lewis died on the 8th day of May, 1903, as near as she can remember;
that he always refused to go and be enrolled for any purpose whatever and
more especially for the purpose of allotment, that for this reason her mother
and the other children have been deprived of his estate as a full blood Choctaw
which they are legally entitled.
Wherefore affiant asks that his name bo placed on the roll of the Choctaw
Tribe as a full blood, which he was and that his estate be distributed to his
legal heirs as Is by law provided.
Martha (her thumb mark) Ck)LBEBT.
Witnesses to mark:
William Nail,
Edmond Jones.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 19th day of July, 1911.
[seal.] F. D. Ungles, Notary Public.
My commission expires October 2, 1912.
State of Oklahoma, Pittsburg County , ss:
Hallucher Lewis, being first duly sworn states that her age is — years; her
post office is Gertie, Okla. ; that she is the widow of one John I^ewis, who died
on the 8th day of May, 1903; that he was a full blood Choctaw and refused to
go anywhere and be enrolled for the purpose of allotment, and that for this
reason she and his children, to wit: Martha Colbert, n^e I^ewls, Ellen Homer,
n^ Lewis, Dixon Lewis, a minor, and Mollle Lewis, the widow of Thompson
T-<ewls, deceased, have been deprived of ^Is allotment, an estate to which they
are legally entitled.
Wherefore she prays that his name be placed on the rolls of the full blood
Choctaws and his estate be distributed to his legal heirs as is by law provided.
Hallucheb (her thumb mark) Lewis.
Witnesses :
William Nail,
Edmond Jones.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of July, 1911.
[seal.] F. D. Uncles, Notary Public,
My commission expires October 2. 1912.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
644 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
State of Oklahoma, Hughes County^ ss:
Ellen Homer states that she is 29 years of age; that she is one oi liie legal
heirs of John Lewis, deceased, being a daughter; that her said father, John
Lewis, died on the Sth day of May, 1903, as near as she can reniBmber, that he
always refused to go and be ewroJled for any pnfpofie whatever and more
espeeiaJly for the purpose of aUotment, that for this reason her mother and the
other children have been deprived of his estate as a full-blood Choctaw whic^
they are legally entitled.
Wherrfore affliant asks that Ms name be placed on the roll of tbe Choctaw
Tribe as a full-bloo^, which he was, and that hi« estate be distributed to his
legal heirs as is by law provided.
B)ixf:N (her x mark) Homeb.
Witnesses to mark:
G. G. GrvENS,
M. P. Archbubn.
The name of Ellen Homer signed by me at her request as she can not write.
Subscrfbed and sworn to before me this tlie 31st day of July, 1911. '
G. G. GiVENs, Notary Public.
My commission expires March 28, 1915.
Birth Affidavit.
Department of the Interior,
CoMVf saioovttt TO THD FfvE CpmAfOO} IMnacB.
[BnrolImeDt of minors. Act of Congress approved Apr. 26, 1906.]
In re applicatton for enrollment as a member by blood of <3hlcka8aw Natioin
of t3ertte, bom on the 18th day of October, 1905. Name of father, Bdmon
Colbert, a citizen of the Cftiic^asaw Nation. Name of mother, Martha Colbert,
a ciUfeen of the Chftcfcasaw Nation. Tribal enrollment of father, Chl<Hjasaw
full blood. Tribal enrollment of mother. Chickafsaw bjr blood. Enroll roent
num'ber of father, No. 903. Enrollment number of mother, No. 1970. Post ofDce,
Gertie, Okla.
affidavit op MOTHER.
State of Oklahoma, Pittsburg County, ss:
I, Martha Colbert, on oat, state that I am 38 years of afe an€ a eitizen by
blood of the Chickasaw Nation; that I am the lawful wiffe of ^mon 'Colbert,
who is a cltfssen by blood of the CSiickasaw Nation ; that a female xAIld was bom
to me -on 18th day ^f October, 1905 ; that said child has been named 8flfl1ie
<:olbert, and was living March 4, 1906, and is now \fviag.
Mabtha (her thumb mark) Colbebt.
Witnesses to mark :
ElDMOND Jones,
William Nail.
8ubscrfbed ahd sworn to b€tfore me this 19th flay dP JBly, IWl.
ISEAL.1 F. D. Ukgles, Notary *t^l)1ic.
My oemmlssicm expires October 2, 19l!2.
affidavit of attending physician OB MIDWIFE.
State of Oklahoma, Pittsburg County, ss:
I, Hallucher Lewis, a midwife, grandmother of child, on oath, state that I
attended on Martha Colbert, wife of Edmon Colbert, on the 18th day of Cipher,
1911; that there was born to her on i^id date a female child; that said Child
was living March 4, 1906, and is said to have been named Sallie Colbert, and Ss
living at this date.
Hallucher (her thunrt) mark) Tjewis.
Witnesses to mark :
Edmond Jones,
William Nail.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day 6f July, 1911.
[SEAL.1 F. D. Ungles, Notary Public. *
My commission expires October 2, 1912. . r^r^m^
^ Digitized by VjOOQIc
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 645
CLASS 7.
The following are cases of claimants who never made application
for enrollment within the time fixed by law, but who are of half
Indian blood or more and incompetent to look after their own
interests. The attention of the department was directed to these
cases as indicated herein.
MusKOOEE, Okla., October ii8, 1910,
Hon. W. P. I\»JX)CK,
AB&istaM Attorney General for
Department of Interior^ Muskogee^ Qkku
Sir : In accordance with your suggestion, we inclose herewith for
investigation a list of persons represented by us who made no appli-
cation for enrollment as citizens of the Choctaw or Chickasaw
Nations, and whose cases are exceptionally meritorious and deserving
of consideration by the department.
RespeQtfuUy,
(Signed) Ballingbr & Lee.
Sosai^ Burton and Raymond Purdy.
From a sworn statement furnished counsel on February 8, 1908,
the following facts appear:
Rosana, Burton is 26 years of age, the daughter of Simon James, a
full-blood Indian. Raymond Purdy, 11 years of ago, is the son of
Bosana Burton.
Rosana Burton was born at Wheelock, Ind. T., and has lived in
the Indian Territory all her life. She gives the following-named
persons as witnesses: Sinie Cleveland, Elsie Strickland, ana Frank
Beemis, all living in Garvin, Okla.
Present post-office address of Rosana Burton is Parsons, Okla.
Frazina Babstist, Acus Babstist, and Reener Gardner.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on the 29th of Feb-
ruarv, 1908, it appears that Frazina Babstist is 32 years of age, a
full-Llood Choctaw^ Indian woman, the daughter of Joe Farve and
Isabell Farve, full-blood Choctaws; that Acus Babstist is the child
of Frazina Babstist; and that Reener Gardner is a niece of the said
Frazina Babstist. It does not appear from the statement furnished
counsel where applicants were born, but the names of two witnesses,
Victoria Gardner, of Bokhomma, Okla., and John T. Williams, of
Swink, Okla., are given by applicant as knowing of her Indian blood
and residence.
Present post office, Bokhomma, Okla.
Joe Babstist, Louisa Babstist, Mattina Babstist, Sam Babstist, and
Johnie Babstist.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on February 29, 1908.
it appears that the above-named parties are brothers and sisters, oi
the following ages, in the order named : 33 years, 20 years, 18 years,
15 years, and 12 years of age, respectively; that they are full-blood
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
646 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Choctaw Indians, bom in the State of Mississippi, but were residing
in the Choctaw Nation on the 28th day of June, 1898.
Present post office, Bokhomma, Okla.
Stella Brasetta.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel January 9, 1908, it
appears that Stella Brasetta is 28 year^ of age, a half-breed Choctaw,
and daughter of Remes Brasetta, a Frenchman, and Melvina James,
a full-blood Choctaw woman } that her mother is now living at Brock,
Okla., and her father is living in Mississippi.
Present post-office address. Brock, Okla.
Reno Gardner.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on the 29th day of
December, 1908, it appears that Reno Gardner is a minor, then 2
years of age, the daughter of Victoria Gardner, n^e Reed ; that Vic-
toria Gardner was a full-blood Choctaw Indian wonian; that the
baid Reno Gardner is now living with her father, Robert Gardner,
at Bokhomma, Okla.
Annie Jesse.
From the statement furnished counsel (not sworn to) it appears
that Annie Jesse is 81 years of age and a full-blood Choctaw Indian,
bom in the State of Louisiana, and was residing in said State on the
28th of June, 1898.
Present post office, Kullituklo, Okla.
Earnest Jesse, Winston Jesse, Willie Jesse, George Jesse, Phillistine
Jesse, and Elissa Jesse.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on February 8, 1908,
it appears that Earnest Jesse is 34 years of age, a full-blood Choctaw
Indian, and the son of Jesse Johnson and Annie McDaniel, full-blood
Choctaw Indians; that the additional named persons are the chil-
dren of Earnest Jesse, ranging in years from 2 years to 12 years, and
his wife, Annie Jesse, is also a full-blood Choctaw Indian. That he
was bom in the State of Louisiana and was living there on the 28th
day of June, 1898.
Present post-office address, Kullituklo, Okla.
Henry Fields, Albert Fields, and Hampton Fields.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on the 10th day of
January, 1908, it appears that Henry Fields is 75 years of age, and
the son of Blue Fields and Anna Fields (n^e Butler) ; that Blue
Fields was a full-blood Choctaw Indian and that Albert Fields and
Hampton Fields are the sons of Henry Fields and are of 39 and 31
years of age. respectively; that Henry* Fields has been voting in the
tribal elections in the Choctaw Nation: that he was born at Colum-
bus, Miss., and came to the Choctaw Nation, Ind. T., when the In-
dians removed from Mississippi at a time when the said Henry Fields
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 647
was about 10 years of age ; that he has lived in the Choctaw Nation
ever since; that his two above-named sons were bom and raised in
the Choctaw Nation.
The name of Henry Fields appears upon the Choctaw roll of
Kiamitia County, 1874.
Ann Booker, Claude Sanders, Kufus Sanders, HoUis Sanders, and
Ray Sanders.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on November 18,
1907, it appears that Ann Booker is 55 years of age, a three-quarter
Choctaw Indian woman ; daughter of Dave Hope, a half-breed Choc-
taw, and Sarah, a Chickasaw Indian woman, and that the additional
named persons are grandchildren of the said Ann Booker. Ann
Booker was born near Tishomingo, Okla., Chickasaw Nation, Ind.
T., and has lived in the Chickasaw Nation all her life. Above-named
grandchildren were born and raised in the Chickasaw Nation. The
names of Ben Prockett and Jesse Powell, of Ardmore, Okla., are
given as witnesses.
Present post-office address, Ardmore, Okla.
Nazile Barnes and Richard Barnes.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel upon the 10th day
of December, 1907, it appears that Nazile Barnes was 38 years of
age, seven-eighths Choctaw Indian, the daughter of Pousan Yarby
and Salina Yarby, and that Richard Barnes is the son of Nazile
Barnes and is 15 years of aee.
Nazile Barnes appeared before the Dawes Commission at Merid-
ian, Miss., in 1901, and removed to the Indian Territory in January,
1903. She was bom at Bay St. Louis, Miss.
Present post-office address, Brock, Okla.
James Farve, Henry Farve, and Earnest Fayard.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on the 10th day of
March, 1908, it appears that James Farve is 29 years of age, is seven-
eighths blood Choctaw Indian, and son of Jules Farve and Zabella
Farve; that Henry Farve is the son of James Farve, and that Earnest
Fayard, 10 years of age, is the nephew of James Farve and three-
quarter Choctaw Indian.
James Farve appeared before the Dawes Commission at Meridian,
Miss., and moved to the Indian Territory in 1902. He was born in
Hancock County, Miss.
Present post-office address. Brock, Okla.
Charlie Farve and Andrew Farve.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel on January 9, 1908,
it appears that Charlie Farve is 38 years of age and three-quarters
Choctaw Indian, the son of Tuson Farve and Salina Farve; that
Andrew Farve is the son of Charlie Farve.
Charlie Farve was born at Bay St. Louis, Miss. ; lived there until
he came to the Indian Territory m 1903.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
648 FIVE CIVILIZED TKIBBS IN OKLAHOMA.
Arlina Farve and Forrest Farve, wife and son, i-espectivdy, ol
Charlie Farve, are upon the finally approved rolls of Mississippi
Choctaws.
Annie Huff, Bennie Reed, EfRe Reed, Pearley Roed, and Nareta
Robins,
From the sworn statement ftumished coimsel on the 21st day of
March, 1908, it appears that Annie Huff is 45 years of age,"^ the
daughter of John McGee, a full-blood Choctaw, and Nannie SicGee,
a full-blood Chickasaw ; that John McG«e was on the tribal rolls, and
that John McGee, a half-brother of applicant, is enrolled and kas bis
allotment ; that Bennie Reed, Effie Reed, Piearley Reed, and Nareta
Robins, nee Reed, are the children of Annie Huff, and that the father
of said children was a full-Wood Cherokee; that she atle«ipted to
wiake application at Atoka, through AUingston Telle, a Choclaw,
who was connected some way with the Dawes Comjmssion ; thai ^i«
was born about 4 miles east of Ti^omingo, Ind. T., and has ]iw9d m
the Chickasaw Nation all her life. She gives the names oi Eltea
Perry, Richmond Perry, of McAlester, Isom Strles, of Lewis, and
Mary Vail, of Atoka, as witnesses. She states tliat at the time she
attempted to make application at Atoka that she was blind, and that
the said Allingston Telle told her to come back, but when she went
back the commission was gone.
Albert Reece, Mack Reece, Annier Reece, Harry Reece, and Charlie
Reece.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel April 29, 1906, it
appears that Albert Reeca i,s 60 years of age and one-half Choctaw
Indian; that his mother's name was Lucy Frye; that Charlie Reece,
22 years of age, is the son of Albert Reece; that Mack Reece^ 28 vears
of age, is the daughter of Albert Reece, and that Annier Reece is the
wife of Albert R^ce ; that she is 56 years of age and three-quarters
Choctaw Indian, the daughter of John Stocks and Susan Stocks, and
that Harry Reece, age 18 years, is the son of Albert and Annier Reece.
The mother of Albert Reece, Lucy Frye, was the sister of William
Frye, sheriff of Atoka County in 1884 and 1885. Albert Reece w^as
born in the Choctaw Nation and has lived ,thei*ein all his life; the
other applicants herein were also born and raised in the Choctaw
Nation. It appears that Albert Reece attempted to make applica-
tion before the commission at McAlester, but the records of the Com-
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes does not disclose snch applica-
tion.
Present post-office address, Alderson, Okla.
Jim Gowins, Nannie Gowins, Harry Gowins, Ellen Gowins, Hattie
Gowins, Husie Gowins, Birder Gowins, James Gowins, Minnie
Gowins, Francis (xowins, Roosevelt Gowins, and Maggie Gowins.
From the sworn statement furnished counsel July 12, 1909. ap-
pears that Jim Gowins is 50 years of age, tlie son of Henry Gowins,
a full-blood Choctaw Indian, and Francis Gowins. a full-blood
Chickasaw Indian; that all of the other above-named persons are
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVB CIVILIZED TBIBBS IN OKLAHOMA. 649
the children ©f the said Jim GowJiiS, ranging^ in age from 3^ to 18
years of age. Jim GFOwins was born and raised in the Choctaw Na-
ticm and has lived therein all his life; ail of his children were born
in ttie Choctaw Nation. He gives the nanies of Moses and Peter
Cristie, of Millerton, as witnesses.
Present po^t-ofiice address of Jim Gowins is Millerton, Okla.
MusKOGEB, Okla., October i^? 1^10.
Hon. W. C. Pollock,
Assistant Attorney General for the Department
of the Interior^ Muskogee^ Okla,
Sir: We desire to call your special attention to the case of Alex-
ander Dick and his two minor children, Zeno Dick and Leeper Dick.
Alexander Dick states that he was advised "that the commission
recojmized only those who had been enrolled by the tribal authori-
ties," and that therefore he made no application for enrollment.
His father, Martin Dick, his mother, Lucy Dick, and several of his
brothers and sisters are on the finally approved rolls. His father
and moth^, brothers, and sisters are on the 1896 Choctaw census
roll for Atoka. County, biit Alexander Dick's name does not appear
thereon.
The 1885 census roll of Atoka County shows Alexander Dick's
name opposite No. 783, aad further shows that he was then 16 years
of age. His father and mother also appear upon this roll. He was
bom at Bog^ Depots in the Choctaw Nation, and has lived all his
life in the vicinity in which he was born. His present post-office
address is Wapanucka, Okla.
We submit that this is an especially meritorious case and should
be considered in the cases of incompetents.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) Ballingbr & Lbe.
Mfskooee, Okla., October 25^ 1910,
Hon. W. C. PoLLot'K.
Sir; Supplementing the list of full-blood Choctaw Indians here-
tofore furnished you, I desire to direct your attention to the case of
Sallie Jackson, a full-blood Choctaw woman, which we a*sk you to
include with other cases heretofore -submitted for your personal in-
vestigation. William Charles, Email Charles, and Wilson Jackson,
sons of Sallie Jackson, have been enrolled as citizens by blood of the
Choctaw Nation, their names appearing opposite Nos. 3142, 13573,
and 3076, respectively. These last-named persons were admitted to
citizenship in the Choctaw Nation by an act of the Choctaw council
approved October 16, 1895, as Mississippi Choctaws.
As to SaUie Jackson, it appears that she was admitted by an act of
the Choctaw council of October 22, 1897, which date, however, was
after the authority of the Choctaw national council to admit persons
to citizenship had expired. No application was made for her en-
rollment when applications were made for the enrollment of her sons,
Digitized by V^OOQIC
650 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
but some time in the latter part of December, 1905, or the early part
of January, 1906, her son. Email Charles, appeared at the office
of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, at Muskogee,
Ind. T., and attempted to make application for the enrollment of
his mother, Sallie Jackson. The commissioner was then without au-
thority to receive applications for enrollment, and no record was
made of this case. Tne matter was reported to Mr. J. W. Howell,
an assistant in the office of the Attorney General for the Department
of the Interior, at the time of his visit to Muskogee in the fall of 1908.
Sallie Jackson is a full-blood Choctaw woman and entitled to
enrollment.
Respectfully,
(Signed) Ballinger & Lke.
CLASS 8.
The claimants in the following case have been enrolled as f reed-
men, but as the tribal officials had previously enrolled them as citi-
zens by blood, and as there is no question as to the lawfulness of
such enrollment they should be placed upon the final roll by blood.
SrsAN Brashears et al. Freedman Card No. 615, Choctaw Freed-
MAN Roll, No. 1346.
(Application for transfer from Choctaw freedman roll to Choctaw
roll by blood.)
RECORD.
January 13, 1906. Petition filed with the Commissioner to the
Five Civilized Tribes for the transfer of the names of Susan Bra-
hhears (formerly Susan McCoy) ; Mary Jane McCoy, Michael Mc-
Coy, Lizzie Robuck (nee McCoy), Frances Boatwri<?ht, and Emma
Cook, children of Susan Brashears; and Isaac Cook, Lila Cook,
Nellie Cook, Willie Cook, and Eva Cook, minor children of Emma
Cook, from the roll of Choctaw freedmen to the roll of Choctaw
citizens by blood, and alleging that Susan McCoy married, as her
first husband, Oliver Stock (or Boss) McCoy, who was a citizen of
the Choctaw Nation by blood, and that by that marriage she became
an intermarried citizen of the Choctaw Nation ; that the other ap-
plicants are the children and ^andchildren of said Oliver Stock
McCoy and Susan McCoy, and are entitled to citizenship in the
Choctaw Nation as citizens by blood. The affidavits of Mary Jane
Cook and Susan McCoy in support of said petition were filed there-
with. The affidavit of Susan McCoy, showmg the facts in her case,
is as follows :
Susan Brashears, ftist being duly swoni. on onth states that she is about 58
years old and lives at Atlas, in said nation and Territory.
Affiant further states that she has been the lawful wife of George Brashears,
a (Choctaw citizen, since the KMh of March. 11K)1, and that prior to that time
for 33 years she was the wife of Oliver Stock McCoy, or sometimes calleil Boss
McCoy, a recognized and enrolled Choctaw citizen of one-half white and one-
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IX OKLAHOMA. 651
half Choctaw blood, by whom she had seven children, five of whom are living,
iind are named as follows: Frances Boatwrlght, Emma Cook, Michael McCoy,
Lizzie Robnck, and Mary McCoy.
Affiant states that her father was a white man named Martin Guess, who was
an adopted citizen of the Choctaw Nation, and that her mother was a colored
woman and a slave.
That when she appeared before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
for the enrollment of herself and children, she stated to the commission that
her children were of Choctaw blood, and asked that they be enrolled as Choc-
taws by blood, but that the commission informed her that they would not
consider her application as such, but would enroll them as freedmen.
There appears in the record the affidavit of Charles Cohee, as
follows :
Charles Cohee, first being duly sworn on oath, states tliat he is 57 yeai-s of
age, resident of the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., and lives at the town of
Berwyn, In said nation and Territory; that he is enrolled as a Chlckasnw
freedman. and that on the 1st day of September, 1898, he was appointed by
R. N. Harris, governor of the Chickasaw Nation, a member of the committee
to sit with the Dawes Commission for the purpose of identifying ai)plicants for
enrollment as freedmen ; that he was again appointed to the same position by
Gov. Johnston in April, 1899, and that he worked every day with the commis-
sion during their sittings in the Chickasaw Nation, and most of the time during
their sittings in the Choctaw Nation.
Affiant further states that at the beginning of the work the committee of
which he was a member, in making statements to the Dawes Commission of
the status of applicants, made particular mention of those who claimed to have
Indian blood; that the applications of such persons claiming Indian blood wei"e
received a while by the commission, but that* in a short time, about 15 days
after the committee began Its sittings, all such applications were rejected by
the said Dawes Commission, and the committee of which affiant was a member
was informed that those applicants who were lK)rn to slave mothers or to negi-o
women who were descended of slaves, were freedmen, and would l>e enrolled
as such only, and the said committee was advised to discontinue hearing the
statement of applicants as to their Indian blood, as In no case would they be
enrolled as Indian citizens; and that therefore the said committee from that
time on, with possibly a few exceptions, refused to hear statements of i)erson8
of mixed colored blood, of their claim tliat they were possessed of Indian blood
In any degree whatever; that the said committee from that time on, In stating
to the commission the status of applicants, only made mention of such family
relations as would establish their rights as freedmen, and made no mention
whatever of the existence of Indian blood, although in many Instances they
knew applicants were possessed of such.
There also appear in the record the affidavits of Ellis Williams,
Solomon Gilbert, W. L. Bennett, and Thomas Norman, to the same
effect as the affidavit of Charles Cohee.
The records in possession of the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes show that on May 11, 1899, Susan McCoy appeared
l)efore the commission, at Goodland, Ind. T., at which time and
place the following proceedings were had :
FREEDMAN.
In re application of Susan McCoy, to the (Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes at Goodland, Ind. T., May 11. 1899, for enrollment as a Choctaw
freedman. Belnj? duly sworn by Commissioner Needles and examined by
him et al., she testified as follows:
Q. What is yonr name? — A. Snsan McCoy.
(}. Were you a slave? — A. Yes. sir; I belonged to Sam Colbert.
(}. Who was your mother? — A. Polly Colbert.
Q. W.ho did she belonp to?— A. Sam Colbert.
Q. Have yoii been living all the time^ in the Territory?— A. Yes, sir; right
here, no other place but here.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
C52 FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Q. Are you married ?— A. I was married, but my busbaad is deacL I have a
married daughter. Iler huslmud took lier off a lUtle before Christmas* aad she
was to get back here by this time, but she has Hot come yet. He took her
down about Texarkaua somewhere.
Q. Has she got any children?— A. Yes^ sir; she has them with her, she has
six.
Q. What is her name? — A. Frances Boatwright
Q. Do you know that she has this young child, George W. Boatwright?— A.
Tes. sir.
(Pliirolled Susan McCoy and childrwi and Frajices Boatwright and her
children as Choctaw freedmen.)
The records show no further proceedings at that time.
There is nothing in the record to show that any answer was erer
filed by the nations to the petition for transfer above set out.
February 13, 1906. Hearing had before the Commissioner to the
Five Civilized Tribes, in the matter of the application for the trans-
fer of the names of applicants from the freediaan roll to the roll
of Choctaws by blood. At that hearing the following, among other
proceedings, were had:
By Mr. Lek : Now, Mr. (.'4>mmissk>uer, let the records show that the request
was made to have included in the record the names of Oliver Boatwright,
Tommie Boatwright. Jimmie Boatwright. Marion Boatwright. Cleaton Victor
boatwright, and George Washington Boatwright, Minor chil«ireu of Frances
Boatwright, one of the petitioners herein.
Bj the OoMMissioNEB : These children are not named in the origtnai pttttLon,
are they?
By Mr. I^k: No, sir.
By the Coumissioneb: The bearing will be c^onflned to the a J legations con-
tained in the i>etitlou under the regulations adopted by the ConimiaslODer to
the Five Civilized Tribes on Janunry 2, 1906. The testimony to be taJsen in tlftis
ease will not apply to tliose applicants.
Susan Brashears, principal applicant, in her examination before
the commissioner on February 13, 1906, states : That she is 59 years
of age, and lives near Hugo ; that she had been enrolled as a Choctaw
freeaman and had selected her allotment of land and received 20
acres; that she was enrolled under the name of Susan McCoy as a
freedman; that she was married to McCov, her first husband, about
five years after the war, and immediately upon her marriage she
was adopted as a citizen; that her children have selected allotments
as freedmen; that she her-self was born in the Choctaw Nation, and
was the slave of Sara Colbert, and lived in the Choctaw Nation
continuously since the time of her birth up to the present time; that
she acquired her rights to Choctaw citizenship t>y reason of her
marriage to McCoy, and did not claim to be a Choctaw by blood;
that her father was a Choctaw man, who came here with the Indians
from Mississippi, and her mother was a colored woman; that she
had told the commission that her children were Indians and should
be enrolled as Choctaws and not as freedmen.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Answer that question, Susan: I want to know when you a|>plied to the
Dawes Commission for the enrollment of yourself and your children sm Choc-
taw freedmen, and you said nothing about them beiuj? entitled to enrollnient
as Choctaw citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation? — A. Yes, sir; I did.
I told them my children ought to be enrolled as Choctaws, I sure did.
That she went where the colored people were being enrolled.
Q. If you were Indians and elnimed Indian rights here, why did you not
go where the Indians were? — A. Well, they would have pushed me away.
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FI\^ CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 65S
The record shows that Susan Brashears was the daughter of
Martin Guess, an adopted white citizen of the Choctaw Nation,
and Polly Colbert, a negro woman, slave of Sam Colbert; that
Oliver Stock {or Boss) McCoy, was a recognized and enrolled Choc-
taw citizen of one-half white and one-half Oioctaw blood.
The record shows that on page 11, of the 1885 census roll, Kiamitia
County, Choctaw Nation, appear the following names, opposite the
numbers set out :
166. Oliver McCoy.
167. Sti«an McCoy, citizen by marriage to McCoy.
168. Francis McCoy, "
1«9. Emily McCoy,
170. Molsy McCoy,
171. Mlcbael McC^oy,
172. EMzabett McCoy,
Half-l>k)od cltisieiis <hi futber's Aide.
The records show that all applicants herein are enrolled upon the
freedman rolls of the Choctaw Nation as finally approved by the
Secretary.
January 31, 1907. Decision of the commission, denying applica-
tions of all claimants for transfer from the freedman rolls to the
roll of Choctaws by blood, for the reason that —
It Aoee not appear from thp records in tlje poa8e«;ton of tbls office that any
appileatioii bas ever been made fer tbe adaxi^slon off petitioners lievein as
citizens by blood of tbe Oboctaw or Ohlcka4Niw NirtJoiis, under the iwovislons
of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1806 (29 Stats., 321), or for their
enrollment as citizens of said nations prior to December 25, 1902.
STATEMENT BY -COrrNST.L.
Oonmsel for claimants respectfnlly submit that the record jfliows
the marriaige of tbe principal claimaiit, SnsaTi Brashears (formerly
SiMUi Mc(>y) to Oliver Stock McCoy, a Choctaw citizen by blood;
the blood and descent of tiie other applicants, who are the chfldren
9mA grandchildren of Olirer Stock McCoy and Snsan McCoy; their
reoogfiitiafi by the tribal authorities, as shown by their enrollment
upon the census roll of 1885; their continuous residence in the Choc-
taw Nation from birth ; and the descent of principal applicant from
Martin Guess, an adopted citizen of the CSioctaw Nation.
Th^ act of Congress approved June 28, 1898, provided :
That in making the rolls of citizenship of the several tribes as required
by 'law, • » • fcald conrniission is authoriased and directed to make rolls of
citiMnis by blood of aU otlier tribes (tmHuding the Oboctaw aiid Chickasaw
Tribes), elinihifttlnK troiu tbe tribal toUs such ntrmes as may have been placed
thereon by fraud or without aufihority of law, ^enrollinji: such only as may have
lawful right thereto and their descendants bom since such rolls were
moAe. • • •
"Dnder this act the commission was directed to eliminate "from the
tribal rolls such names as may have been placed thereon by fraud
or without authority of law." Nowhere in the record is there a line
showing that the names of applicants were placed upon the census
roll of 188o by fraud or without authority of law, or that the nations
ever made any such allegation, or that either the nations or the com-
mission ever made any attempt to show that said names were placed
on that roll " by fraud or without authority of law." If the names
of applicants were not placed upon the tribal rolls "by fraud or
Digitized by V^OOQIC
654 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
without authority of law," then they " have lawful right thereto '' ;
and if the names are rightfully upon the census roll of 1885 as Choc-
taws by blood or intermarriage, then it is obligatory upon the com-
mission to enroll them, together with their descendants.
This case comes within the opinion of the Assistant Attorney
General for the Department of the Interior in the Joe and DiUard
Perry case, which opinion was approved by the Secretary and has
never been reversed. Under that opinion the applicants were en-
titled not only to a hearing but to enrollment.
Those entitled to enrollment are Susan Brashears (formerlv Mc-
Coy), Michael McCoy, Lizzie McCoy (now Robuck), Mary McCoy,
Emma Cook (nee McCoy), Isaac Cook, Lilly Cook, Nellie Cook,
Willie N. Cook, Eva Cook, Frances Boatwright (nee McCoy), Oliver
Boatwright, Tommy Boatwright, James Boatwright, Jrowhattan
Boatwright, Clayton Boatwrignt, George Washington Boatwright,
and Greorge Lorey Cook.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee,
The applicant in the following case was enrolled as a freedman but
should have been transferred to the roll by blood at the time her
brothers and sisters were transferred to that roll.
Annie McGee, Chickasaw. Com3iission, Xo. F. 82. Commission
Freedman, No. 572.
February 20, 1906. Petition was filed with the Commissioner to
the Five Civilized Tribes for the transfer from the roll of Chickasaw
fredmen to the roll of Chickasaws by blood, among others, of Annie
McGee. It was alleged in the petition that Annie McGee and the
other petitioners named were the children of Jesse McGee by his
lawful wife, Dora McGee, and that Jesse McGee was an enrolled
citizen of the Chickasaw Nation bj^ blood.
July 2, 1906. Hearing was had in this case, at which time it de-
veloped that the child, Annie McGee, was not the child of Dora
McGee but was the child of Jesse McGee by Caroline Wilson, a
freedwoman.
February 18, 1907. The commissioner rendered a decision grant-
ing the petition and enrolling the other petitioners in said petition
as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, but held as follows
with reference to the petitioner, Annie McGee :
Tbe record herein further shows that the i)etitioners, except Aimie McGee,
were minors on September 25. 1902; that the said Annie McGee was 15 years of
age in 1898.
The act of Congress approved July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., ^1), provides in part
as foUows:
"The word 'minor* shall be held to mean males under the age of 21 years
and females under the age of 18 years."
Said Annie McGee was therefore not a minor on September 25, 1902.
The names of none of the petitioners appear upon any of the tribal rolls of
the Chickasaw Nation in the possession of the Commissioner to the Five Civi-
lized Tribes. The name of Jesse McGee appears on the 1893 Chlclaisaw leased
district payment roll and on the 1896 Chickasaw census roll.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 655
I am therefore of the opinion that, inasmuch as it does not appear that
Annie McGee has ever been recognized and enrolled as a citizen of the Chieka-
. saw Nation by any duly constituted authority, the apj)Hcatlon for her enroll-
ment as a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation and the petition herein,
in so far as it applies to said applicant, should be denied under the provisions
of the act of Congress approved July 1. 1902 (32 Stats., 641), and it is so
ordered.
March 4, 1907. The department approved the decision of the
commissioner as to the petitioner Annie McGee.
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
This case comes within the opinion of the Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral for the department, which opinion was approved by the Secre-
tary of the Interior and has never been reversed. Under said opin-
ion the petitioner herein is entitled to enrollment.
Counsel also represents that the other children of Jesse McGee,
claiming their Chickasaw blood through him, have been enrolled as
citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, their names appearing
upon the final roll of Chickasaws by blood as approved by tne Secre-
tary of the Interior, as follows :
5049. McGee, Florence.
5050. MeGee, Mattle.
5051. McGee, John.
5052. McGee, Allison.
5053. McGee, Wade.
5054. McGee, Ruby.
5055. McGee, Oliver.
5056. McGee, Elsie.
Counsel therefore submit that the petitioner herein is entitled to
enrollment.
Entitled to enrollment : Annie McGee.
Respectfully submitted.
Balunoer & Lee.
SERVICE.
Evidence of the service on the Department of the Interior and the
attorneys for the nations of the foregoing statements of fact.
Muskogee, Okla., November 5, 1910.
W. C. Pollock, Esq.,
Representative of the Secretary of the Interior^
Com/mission to the Five Gimlized Tribes^ Muskogee^ Okla,
Sir: Under separate cover we hand you copy of statements of
fact prepared by u.s in Choctaw-Chickasaw citizenship cases, which
we snail offer to the committees of Congress as a correct statement
in the respective cases.
Service is made upon you, as the representative of the depart-
ment here, in order that these cases may be checked up by the depart-
ment, and any objection on the part of the department to the enroll-
ment of the respective claimants presented to the committees of
Congress when these cases are taken up by said committees for con-
sideration and final disposition.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
656
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
The following is a list of said cases :
Mc-
Agnes O. Mallory. Choctaw.
Snrab A. Kelton et al., Choctaw.
Sallie Berryman et al., Choctaw.
A. A. Spi-lft^ et a]., Choctaw.
JJzzie Heiirj', Choctaw.
W. A. Clark et al., Choctaw.
Oscar Casey et al., Chickasaw.
Nancy J. Cooper et al., Choctaw.
Mary Huffman et al.. Choctaw.
Kate Camel et al.. Choctaw.
Joseph C. Moore et al., Chickasaw.
Robert Goins et al., Choctaw.
John P. Holder et al., ChJckasaw.
Z. T. Bottoms et al., dioctaw.
John MeCarty et al.. Anderson
Carty el al., Choetaws.
Edward J. Home et al., Choctaw.
D. B. Vernon et al., Choctaw.
Wm. B. Moore et al., OiioctffW.
Barah Pehner et al., -Ohickasaw.
F. K. West et al., Choctaw.
W. R. Sessums et al., Choctaw.
Emily J. Zumwalt et al., Chocfaw.
James C. Johnson et al., James J.
Bennijfht et al.. Choetaws.
J. W. Sparks et al., Chickasaw.
Virginia Savajcie et al., Chickasaw.
Henry Brown et al., Chickasaw.
Aleck Brown et al., Chickasaw.
Anderson P. Cowling, Choctaw.
Josephine La Flore I>^ng et al., Choctaw.
James A. Cummins et al., Choctaw.
Frances E. Husbands, •Choctaw.
Mary A. Sanders et al., Choctaw.
John R. Kirk et al., Choctaw.
Willie G. Patterson et al. ; Maggie T-.ee
(JIauce et al., Choetaws.
Respectfully,
John Mitchell et al., Choctaw.
Joftin Pickens et ai., Choctaw.
I^Yanklin M. Harton et al., Choctaw.
James A, Ward et al., Choctaw.
John Franklin Turner et al., Choctaw.
Elizabeth HigiUght et al., Choctaw.
Newt Askew et al., William Quint
A^ew et al., L. F. Kheades et aL,
J. H. Hill et al., J. M. Hill et al.,
Ella Bennett et al., Choetaws.
Everett Crutchfield et al., David Rlt-
ter, Choetaws.
Amanda Coyle et al., Choctaw.
James McPhetridge et a I., WtUiam T.
Sledge et al., Harriet Gordon et aL,
Rosa Tapp et al., Choetaws.
Daniel Sledge et al., Choctaw.
Frank H. Love, Choctaw.
Minerva T. Swadley et aL, Choctaw.
Abfaham H. Nail, Oboctaw.
Robert L. Vaughn et al., Ajinie M.
Duncan et al., Choetaws.
Sallie A. Vaughn ^t al., Cora M. Stotti
et al., Choetaws.
John T. Williams et al., Choctaw.
Frank P. Morgan, CJioctaw.
Clemon Clay Stinnett et al., Gbicka-
saw.
Joseph W. Gamblin et aU Chectaw.
Victoria Boyd et al., Choctaw.
M. W. McCarley et aJ., Chickasaw.
Myrtle Randolph et al., Choctaw.
fltams Bin let al., ^Chtekataw.
Napoleon B. Brashears et al., Oboctaw.
Jane Marrs et al., Choctaw.
Lou Bumgarner et al., Choctaw.
Ballinger & Lee.
Service of the above is hereby aeo^ted this 3d day of November,
1910.
W. C Pollock.
Ardmore, Okla., Deoemher 17^ 1910.
Hon. W. C. Pollock,
Mmkogee^ Okla.
Sir: There is inclosed herewith copies of statements oi fact in the
cases of Cathenne Whittle, Eliza Jane Pearce, Petei* Hamilioiu
T. D, Arnold, and Josie Brown, copies of which we have servea
upon the attorneys for the Choctaw Nation, and which we e:q>eot to
present to the Committees on Indian Affairs as being a true state-
ment of the record of said cases as disclosed by the files of the Com-
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Very respectfully, Balllnqer & Lee.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 657
BBGISTBT BETUBIT BEOEIPT.
Received from the poBtmaster registered article, the original number of which
appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, December 17, 1910.
W. O. Pollock, Assistant Attorney.
Abch Speabs.
MusKOGBE, Okla., October 18^ 1910.
Messrs. Hill & McCurtain,
Attorneys at Law^ McAlester^ Okld.
Gentlemen : I inclose you by re^tered mail copies of statements
of fact in the following Choctaw citizenship cases : A. A. Sprme et
al., F. K. West et al., IM&ry Huffman et al., Kobert Goins et al., wT R.
Sessums et al., John McUarty et al., Anderson McCarty et al., D. B.
Vernon et al., Lizzie Henry et al., William C. Johnson et al., the
originals of which we wiU tender to the Committees on Indian
Affairs of the House and Senate as a true statement of fact and ask
for the enrollment of the claimants by special act of Congress at the
next session.
We submit these to you now in order that you may have ample
opportunity to investigate these cases and submit at the proper
time any objections you may have to the enrollment of any or all
of said claimants.
Very respectfully, Ballinger & Lee.
Muskogee, Okla.
Parcel No. 60360.
Received for regli^tratlon October 18, 1910, from Ballinger & Lee» addressed
to Hill & McOurtaln, McAlester, Okla.
First-class postage prepaid.
Return receipt demanded.
POBTMASTni,
Per F.
BESGISTET RETURN RECEIPT.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of wWcb
appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, October 18, 1910.
McCuRTAiK & Hill.
Qboros L. Hill.
Muskogee, Okla., October 18^ 1910.
Messrs. Clapp & Rogers,
Attorneys at Law^ Muskogee^ Okla.
Gentlemen : We inclose j^ou by registered mail copies of state-
ments of fact in the following Chickasaw citizenship cases: Henry
Brown et al., Sarah Palmer et al., Oscar Casey et al., the original
of which we will tender to the Committees on Indian Affairs of the
House and Senate as a true statement of fact, and ask for the enroll-
ment of the claimants by special act of Congress at the next session.
69282—13 42
Digitizejd by V^OOQIC
658 FIVE CIVILIZED TEIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
We submit these to you now in order that jrou may have ample
opportunity to investigate these cases and submit at the proper time
any objections you may have to the enrollment of any or all of said
claimants.
Very respectfully, Ballingeb & Lee.
Muskogee, Okla.
I^ter No. 50368.
Received for registration October 18, 1910, from Ballluger & Lee, box 914,
addressed to Olapp Sc Rogers, attoraers, Muskogee, Okla.
First-class postage prepaid.
Return receipt demanded.
POSTMASTEB,
Per F.
fflJGISTBY BETURN BECEIPT.
deceived from the i)ostmaster registered article, tlie original nniuber of which
appears ou the reverse side of this card.
Date of deUvery, October 18, 1910.
Olapp & Rogcks.
LUBA V. THOMP80N.
Muskogee, Okla., October 25^ 1910.
Messrs. Hill & McCuktain,
Attorneys at Law^ McAleater^ Okla.
Gevtlemen : We inclose you by registered mail copies of state-
ments of fact in the following Choctaw citizenship cases : Sallie Ber-
ryman et al., Anderson F. Cowling et al., Willie G. Patterson, Kate
Gamel et al., William E. Moore et al.,Jesse A. Ward et al., Emily J.
Zmnwalt et al., E. J. Home et al., Frances E. Husbands, Jc^in R
Kirk et al., Sarah A. Kelton et al., James A. Commins et al.. William
B. Brown et al.. Josephine Laflore Lon^ et al., Franklin M. Hart<Hi
et al., John Pickens et al., John Mitchell et aL, Robert Goins et al.,
the origiBais of which we will tender to the Committees on Indian
Affairs of the House and Senate as a true statement of fact, and
ask for the enrollment of the -eliWHMints by special act' of Congress
at the next session.
We submit these to you now in order that you may have ample
opportuBitv to investigate these cases and submit at the proper
time any objections you may have to the enrollment of any or all of
said claimants.
Your attention is called to the fact that statement of fact in the
case of Robert Goins et al. is inclosed herewith, same having been
rewritten. It is intended* that the statement of fact sent you here-
with shall supersede the statement sent you with our letter of
October 18.
Very respectfully, .
BECEtPT FOE REX2IBTEBED MAIL.
Registry Division, Muskogee, OKI4A.,
Octo%er 26, 1910.
No. .
This receipt represents a letter or pnrccl registered at the post office indi-
cated by postmark. Inquiries concerning registered mail sliotild state tlie nam**
ber of the article, date of its registration, and the names and addresses of the
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 659
sender and addressee. The sender of the article represented by this receipt
tjhould write the name and address of the addressee on the reverse side.
First-class postage prepaid.
Itetum receipt demanded.
Postmaster,
Per F.
BEOISTRY RETtJBN RECEIPT.
Received from the ijoatmaster registered article, the original number ot
which appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery,' October 25, 1910.
McCuRTAiN & Hill.
George L. Hill.
Muskogee, Okla., October 25^ 1910,
Messrs. Clapp & Rodgers,
Attorneys at Law^ Muskogee^ Okla.
Gentlemen: We inclose you by registered mail copies of state-
ments of fact in the following Cnickasaw citizenship cases: Aleck
Brown et al., Virginia Savage et al., J. W. Sparks et al.j Joseph C.
Moore et al., John P. Holder et al., the originals of which we will
tender to the Committees on Indian Affairs of the House and Senate,
as a true statement of fact, and ask for the enrollment of the claim+
ants by special act of Congress at the next session.
We submit these to you now, in order that you may have ample
opportunity to investigate these cases, and submit, at the proper time,
any objections you may have to the enrollment of any or all of said
claimants.
Very respectfully, .
RECEIPT FOR REQUrTEBED MAIL.
Xo. 8872. Muskogee, Okla., October 2J, JOtO.
Thl9 receipt represents a letter or parcel registered at ttie post ofQce indi-
cated by postmark. Inquiries concerning registered mail sliould state the
number of the article, date of its registration, and the nannes and addresses
of the sender and addressee. The sender of the article represented by this
receipt should write the name and address of the addressee on the reverse side.
Return receipt demanded.
F^f8t-cla8s postage prepaid.
P06TMA8TEB,
Per F.
BBOIBTSr BETUBN RECEIPT.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of which
appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery October 26, 1910.
RoDGEBS & Clapp.
LuRA V. Thompson.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
660 FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.
Muskogee, Okla, November 5, 1910.
Messrs Clapp & Bodgers,
Attorneys at Law^ Muskogee^ Okla,
Gentlemen : We inclose you by registered mail copies of state-
ments of fact in the following Chickasaw citizenship cases : demon
Clay Stinnett et al., M. W. McCarley et al., Evans Hill et al., the
originals of which we will tender to the Committees on Indian Affairs
of the House and Senate, as a true statement of fact, and ask for the
enrollment of the claimants by special act of Congress at the next
session. '
We submit these to you in order that you may have ample oppor-
tunity to investigate these cases, and submit, at the proper time, any
objections you may have to the enrollment of any or all of said
claimants.
Very respectfully, .
RECEIPT FOB BE6ISTEBED MAIL.
No. 4282. Muskogee, Okla., Xotemher 3, 1910.
This receipt represents a letter or parcel registered at the post office indicated
by postmark. Inquiries concerning registered mail should state the number of
the article, date of its registration, and the names and addresses of the sender
and addressee. The sender of the article represented by this receipt should
write the name and address of the addressee on the reverse side.
Return receipt demanded.
First-class postage prepaid.
POSTMASTEB,
Per P.
BEOISTBT BETUBN BECBIPT.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of which
appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, November 4, 1910.
RODdEBS & Clafp.
LuBA V. Thompson.
Muskogee, Okla., November 5, 1910,
Messrs. Hill & McCurtain,
Attorneys at Law^ McAlester^ Okla.
Gentlemen: We inclose you by registered mail copies of state-
ments of fact in the following Choctaw citizenship cases: Agnes O.
Mallory et al., W. A. Clark et al., Z. T. Bottoms et al.^ John Franklin
Turner et al., Mary A. Sanders et al., Elizabeth Higniffht et al., Newt
Askew et al., Everett Crutchfield et al., Amanda Coyle et al., James
McPheteridge et al., Daniel Sledge et al., Frank H. Love et al.,
Minerva T. Swadlev et al., Lou Bumgarner et al., Abraham H. Nail
et al., Robert L. Vaughn et aL, Sallie A. Vauffhn et al., John T.
Williams et al., Frank P. Morgan, Joseph W. Gamblin et al., Vic-
toria Boyd et al.. Myrtle Randolph et al.. Napoleon B. Brashears el
al., Jane Marrs et al., the originals of which we will tender to the
Committees on Indian Affairs of the House and Senate as a true
Digitized by V^OOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 661
statement of fact and ask for the enrollment of the claimants by
special act of Congress at the next session.
We submit these to you now in order that you may have ample
opportunity to investigate these cases and submit, at the proper time,
any objections you may have to the enrollment of any or all of saia
claimants.
Very respectfully,
BECEIPT8 FOB BS0I8TEBED MAIL.
XO. 42S3.
Muskogee, Okla., November 3, 1910.
This receipt represents a letter or parcel registered at the post office indi-
cated by postmark. Inquiries concerning registered maU should state the num-
ber of the article, date of its registration, and the names and addresses of the
sender and addressee. The sender of the article represented by this receipt
should write the name and address of the addressee on the revei'se side.
Return receipt demanded.
First-class postage prepaid.
POSTMASTEB.
Per F.
No. 4284.
Muskogee, Okla., November S, 1910,
This receipt represents a letter or parcel registered at the post office indi-
cated by postmark. Inquiries concerning registered mail should state the num-
ber of the article, date of its rostra tion, and the names and addresses of the
sender and addressee. The sender of the article represented by this receipt
should write the name and address of the addressee on the re\'er8e side.
Return receipt demanded.
First-class postage prepaid.
Postmasteb.
Per F.
begistby betubn beceipts.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of
which appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, Novemljer 4, 1910.
Hill & McCubtain,
By Geo. S. Hill.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of
which appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, November 4, 1910.
Hill & McCubtain,
Geo. S. Hill.
Muskogee, Okla., December ;?, 1910.
Messrs. Rodoers & Clapp,
Attorneys for the Chickasaw Nation^
Muskogee^ Okla.
Gextuemen: Inclosed herewith statements of fact in Chickasaw
enrollment cases as below named, which we expect to present to the
Indian committees of Congress as being a true and correct state-
ment of the record in said cases as shown by the files of the Com-
missioner to the Five Civilized Tribes (transfer cases) : Ned Fore-
Digitized by V^OOQ IC
662 Fn^ CIVILIZED tribes in OKLAHOMA.
man et al., Bettie Ligon et al., Theoda Sparks, Annie McGee, Re-
becca Samuels et al., Sallie Burton et al., Isaac Frazier, Parlee Clark
et al., Columbus Kemp et al., Sampson Alexander et al., Stephen
Alexander et al., Kittie Love et al., Yoch Jackson et al., Lee Wash-
ington. \
Respectfully, .
RBGI8TBY RETURN RECEIPT.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of
which appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, December 8, 3910.
RODQEIS S Claft.
LlTBA V. Thompso^t.
Muskogee, Okla., December *, 1910.
Messrs. Hill & McCurtain,
Attorneys for the Choctaw Nation^ McAlester^ Okla,
Gentlemen : Inclosed herewith statements of fact in Choctaw en-
rollment cases as below named, which we expect to present to the
Indian committees of Congress as being a true and correct statement
of the record in said cases as shown by the files of the Commissioner
to the Five Civilized Tribes: Martha Graham, transfer case: Joe
Battiese et al., transfer case; Tennessee Askew et al., transfer case;
Sam Le Flore et al., transfer case; Susan Brashears et al., transfer
case; Walter Durant, transfer case; Charles Alexander et al., trans-
fer case; Joe Williams, transfer case; Mary Smithy transfer case;
Nay Everidge et al., transfer case; Amelia Brashears, transfer case:
Melvina James et al, transfer case; Morris Garland et al, transfer
case; Moses Burris, transfer case; Carrie English, transfer case;
Alex Miller et al., transfer case; Mary Butler et al., transfer case;
Joe Lawrence et al., transfer case ; Wilson Everidge et aL, transfer
case ; Jerry Fulsom, transfer case ; Madrid Gas et al., transfer case ;
Arthur Jamison et al., transfer case; Isabella Gillispie et al., trans-
fer case; Vicey Moses et al., transfer case; Lula Seitz et al., transfer
case; MelWna King et al., transfer case; Lee Washington, transfer
case; Lorenzo Russell, transfer case: Katie Wilson et al., transfer
case; Fannie Colbert, transfer case: Lee Washington, transfer case;
Kinney Tidwell et al., Choctaws by blood.
Respectfully, .
REGISTER RETURN RECEIPT.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of which
appears on the reverse side of this card.
Date of delivery, December 3, 1910.
MCCURTAIW & HII.L.
Geo. 8. Hill.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
FIVE CIVILIZED TBIBES IN OKLAHOMA. 668
Ardmobe, Okla., Deceviber 17^ 1910.
McCtjRTAiN & Hill,
McAlester^ Okla.
Gentlemen : There is- inclosed herewith statement of fact pre-
Sared in the cases of Catherine Whittle, Eliza Jane Pearce, Peter
[amilton, T. D. Arnold, and Josie Brown, which statements we ex-
Sect to present to the C!ommittees on Indian Affairs of the House of
lepresentatives and Senate of the United States as a true and cor-
rect statement of the record in said cases, as shown by the files of the
Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.
Respectfully, Ballinger & Lee.
BBGISTBT BETUBN BECEIPT.
Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of which
appears' on the reverse side of this card.
Date of deUvery, December 19, 1910.
McGuRTAiN & Hill.
Geo. S. Hill.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
INDEX TO CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEYS.
Paca.
Arnold, T. D., et al 1 686
Askew, Newt, et aU— 479
A8kew, William Q., et al 479
Babstist, F. and A 645
Babstlst, Joe, et al 645
Barnes, Nozile, et al 647
BeaU Andrew, et al 385
Bennett, Ella, et al 479
Bennight, James J., et al 577
Berryman, Sallie, et al 439
Booker, Ann, et al 647
Bottoms, Z. T., et al 396
Boyd, Victoria, et al 441
Brashears, Susan, et al 650
Brashears, N. B., et al 315
Breasetta, Stella 646
Brown, Aleck, et al 620
Brown, Henry, et al 606
Bumgamer, Lou, et al 332
Barton, Rosana 645
Cdldwell, Mariah, et al 385
Casey, Oscar, et al 419
Clark, W. A., et al 536
Coker, Peggie 634
Colbert Sallie 642
Cooper, Nancy J., et al 346
Coyle, Amandai et al 618
Cowling, Anderson F 284
Cmumings, James A., et al 376
Dick, Alexander 649
Duncan, Annie M., et al 498
Farve. James, et al 647
Fields, Henry, et al 646
Folsom, David H 376
Gamel, Kate, et al 528
Gamlin, Joseph W., et al 341
Gardner, Keener 645
Gardner, Reno 646
Glance, Maggie L 455
Gains, Robert, et al 370
Gordon. Harriet, et al 293
Hager, R 573
Harton, F. M., et al 364
Henry, Lizzie , 434
Hegnight, Elizabeth, et al ^v 607
Hill, Evans, et al 551
Hill, J. M., et al 479
Hill, J. H., et al 479
Hill. T^wis, et al 403
Holder, John P., et al 512
Home, Ed. J., et al 525
Huff, Annie, et al 648
666
Digitized by V^OOQIC
666 INDEX TO CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEYS.
Page.
Huffman, Mary, et al 533
Humphrey, G. J., et al 404
Husbands, Francis E 290
Jackson, Sallie 641)
Jesse, Annie 646
Jesse, Earnest, et al 646
Jolinson, James C., et al 577
Kelton, Sarah A., et al 453
Kirk, John K., et al 370
Loman, S 573
Long, Josephine L., et al 624
Love, Frank H., et al 443
Mallory, Agnes O., et al 431
Marlow, Crawford, et al : 385
Marrs, Jane, et al , 385
Meeks. James M 576
Mitchell, John, et al 619
Moore, Joseph C, et al - - 822
Moore, William E., et al 805
Morgan, Frank P 287
McCarley, M. W., et al 546
McCarty, John, et al 501
MeGee, Annie 654
MePheteridge, James, et al 293
Nail, Abraham H., et al 297
Orphan, Buster : 630
Palmer, Sarah, et al 581
Patterson, Willie G., et al 455
Pickens, John, et al 465
Purdy, Raymond 645
Reece, Albert, et al 648
Rhoades. L. F., et al 479
Sanders, Mary A., et al 618
Savage, Virginia, et al 301
Seesums, W. R., et al . 595
Sharp, Silas, et al 567
Sledge, William T., et al 296
Sparks, J. W., et al 474
Spring, A. A., et al 885
Stephens, WUllam T 300
Stinnett, C. C, et al 600
Stotts, Cora M 575
Stubblefleld, Terry T., et al 369
Tapp, Rose, et al 298
Underwood, Epsle, et al 385
Vaughn, Sallie, et al 575
Vaughn, Robert L., et al 498
Vernon, D. B., et al 610
West, F. K.. et al 39t,
White, George Lee, et al 885
Whittle, Catherine, et al ' 421
Williams, John T 427
Zumwalt, Emily J., et al 291
o
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
M
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQIC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
f
THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY
KEFBRBNCB OBPARTMl^NT
ThiB book ftt under no oit'OnaistMnoeft to be
taken irom the BtiUdiotf
I
Google ,
3
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11