CHAPTER XIV. CAPTAIN GRAYSON’S VIEWS; MISS BARNARD’S WORK; THE MINORS’ ESTATES
Captain G. W. Grayson of Eufaula, who has served many years as official interpreter to the Creeks, and who is frequently employed by the Smithsonian savants in their studies of Indians, read my Oklahoma manuscript and commented as follows:—
“It is proper to state that in the Creek Nation, excluding negroes, some degree of protection and supervision should be extended over two-thirds of the people. Some time since, the inquiry was propounded to Mr. Kelsey as to why the Government officials found it necessary to withhold from the allottee the proceeds of the sale of lands in which he is interested, paying it out in small amounts from time to time to him as his need required. He promptly replied that the experience of the office had very decidedly indicated this to be the humane thing to do. That there were many instances where a full-blood Indian was paid a considerable sum of royalty money accruing from oil wells on his lands, who was taken in charge by bad white men as soon as he left the office, who immediately conducted him to some convenient brothel where drink is one of the allurements, and rob him of every penny of the money paid to him. This happens usually during the night following the payment, when on the morning after the robbery, appears the Indian pleading to be again paid at least sufficient to pay his railroad fare so he can get out of town. To this officer of the Government, it appeared very clear that it was the duty of the Agents of the Department who, in a large sense, had assumed the guardianship of these Indians, to adopt such precautions as would prevent a recurrence of like enormities.
“Another method adopted, and in many cases practiced, is that of allowing the visiting payee only sufficient money to purchase his immediate necessities while in the city, advising him to call at the postoffice in his home town, where the rest of his money due him is sent to him in the form of a check.
“The theory on which such action is based is, that the Indian receiving his money at his home, where he is free from the influence of intoxicants and bad white men, he can wisely advise his wife as to what use to which this money may be appropriated, and in these cool and sober moments, plan and adopt ways of disbursement that will actually benefit the family.”
On May 17th, 1912, the Chairman of the Board of Indian Commissioners, Honorable George Vaux, Jr., visited Oklahoma and spent some time traveling through the Cherokee, Creek and Seminole countries. He was accompanied by Dana H. Kelsey, Esq., Superintendent of the Union Indian Agency, having in charge the Five Civilized Tribes. Mr. Vaux’s findings were published in the 43rd Annual Report of the Board, 1912.
Desiring to study the Oklahoma situation in its broader aspects, I visited Oklahoma in March, 1913, in company with J. Weston Allen, Esq., who represented the Boston Indian Citizenship Committee and other organizations. We spent considerable time not only in consultation with various Government officials and private citizens, but also in driving over the Creek, Seminole and Cherokee countries.
Mr. Allen remained after I returned East, and drove many miles through the region inhabited by the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, and made a report to me on the situation as he found it.
Both of us took numerous photographs showing the actual conditions under which the Indians are living.
I made a report on conditions and submitted recommendations to our Chairman, Mr. Vaux, and to the Honorable Secretary of the Interior. This report was criticised in Congress by Honorable Mr. Stephens, Representative from Texas. Apparently Mr. Stephens did not read the report. He stated in his speech of July 27th, during discussion of the Indian appropriation bill:—
“Mr. Moorehead, the Commissioner mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Graham) a few moments ago, went to Oklahoma last year and by unjust criticism of Indian officials there stirred up more trouble for the Indian Bureau than has ever before occurred in the settlement of the matters of the Five Tribes.”
Mr. Stephens desired to see the Board of Indian Commissioners abolished. Speaking for myself personally, and not for the Board, I desire to say that a few years ago it was stated that the Board was not active. Immediately the Board extended its work and projected a number of important investigations, which were carried to a successful end. In the last Congress the Board was criticised for being too active, especially in Oklahoma. Friends of the Board rallied to its support and the former appropriation of $4,000 was raised to the present amount of $10,000.
The past two years studies of Indian conditions by members of the Board have been carried on in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona. This winter the Board intends to investigate conditions on the Pacific Coast, in the Northwest, Oklahoma, Montana and elsewhere.
In reply to Mr. Stephens’ two speeches, I wrote to him and pointed out wherein he was in error. No answer has been received to these letters. Careful reading of my report will convince any unprejudiced person of this fact—that instead of criticising the Indian Office officials in Oklahoma, I commended them. The only criticisms were those aimed at the grafters, and in nearly fifty instances I gave names of guardians or administrators, who had swindled Indians, giving details gleaned from court records. The report urged the Congressional delegation from Oklahoma to take a firm stand in behalf of the Indians.
Much injury is done to the cause for which we are all striving by such speeches as the one cited above. In closing my comments on this unfortunate matter, I desire to state that friendly relations exist between myself and all the Government officials, and that without exception, everyone of them has furnished, or offered, information for this book.
Miss Kate Barnard last winter began a radical campaign on behalf of the Oklahoma Indians. I am sorry space does not permit the recital of Miss Barnard’s dramatic story. It seems that for years she was in charge of the Department of Charities and Corrections, for the State. She found in the orphans’ homes and poorhouses, large numbers of small children, chiefly Indians. Investigation proved that these children were once possessed of valuable property, out of which guardians had swindled them. After the robbery became complete, the guardians avoided personal responsibility by persuading judges to declare the children homeless paupers; and placed them in State institutions, where they were supported at public expense. The number of children declared paupers mounted into the thousands. The thing became a national scandal, and Miss Barnard soon found herself involved in a fight with the politicians and grafters who profited by these wholesale swindles. Miss Barnard’s official reports for the years 1909 to 1913 describe many of these cases in heart-rending detail. The appropriations for her department were wholly inadequate to care for more than a fraction of the State wards, and she was compelled to cooperate with the Federal authorities. This brought her department in line with Mr. Mott, Mr. Kelsey and others who were fighting to bring about similar reforms.
Naturally, she aroused powerful opposition in her own State. The cry of “Eastern sentimentalism” could not be raised against her, she being a State employee. Her campaign seriously affected oil, land and other interests. Hence, the Legislature cut off her appropriation, allowing her salary, but no funds for publication, employment of assistants, travel or other necessary items, whereupon Miss Barnard visited Chicago and raised some thousands of dollars with which to wage a campaign of education. She has organized eleven counties, and although hampered in every way by the grafters, speaks to large gatherings throughout the State. At one meeting 8000 persons assembled to hear her.
She delivered a stirring address at the Lake Mohonk Conference October 21st, this year, and through her efforts the Conference introduced a plank in its platform to the effect that if Oklahoma failed to properly protect her restricted Indians, the Federal Government should resume jurisdiction over them.
Miss Kate Barnard is justly called the “Joan of Arc of Oklahoma”.
Of slight figure—even frail—she is possessed of lion’s courage and is a most direct, forceful and dramatic speaker. I asked her able assistant and attorney, Mr. Huson, “Where are all these big men of the West, the fellows of the big and courageous hearts, the men we read so much about? Why are they not supporting this woman in her heroic fight?”
He replied: “Oh, they have hearts, all right, when it comes to other matters. But so long as they can make millions out of the Indians, it’s no use to talk the humanities to them. They all follow David Harum’s golden rule.”
In a letter dated July 23, 1912, Mr. H. Huson, Assistant Commissioner of the State Department of Charities and Corrections, which was presented to Congress by President Taft in his veto of the bill attempting to validate inherited land titles, it was also said:
“Armed with this authority Miss Barnard has intervened in behalf of approximately 3,000 orphans, nearly all of these Indian children whose estates were being exploited or disposed of by incompetent or grafting guardians. We have had many guardians removed, and we have saved for these children since this law became operative something like $100,000 in money and prevented the sale or return of something like 115,000 acres of land.”
Yet in spite of her good work she is now compelled to fight for existence.
The Indian Office decided to take a hand in the struggle, and Honorable Cato Sells, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, visited Oklahoma early this year, brought together all the probate judges and other officials and made a plea for cooperation in the prevention of further despoiling of the Indian. A set of rules, or method of procedure, was adopted, and the probate judges of Oklahoma have agreed to follow them. Everyone hopes Mr. Sells’ plan will work to the advantage of the minors and dependents.
Of the thousands of cases where minors and incompetents were swindled out of property, I present but three or four typical of the larger number. These are from official records.
One man was guardian in thirty-one cases involving more than fifty minors. In all but one case this man as guardian had been dealing with his brothers in the purchase of merchandise for his wards. There is but one exception, that of a minor eighteen years old who was away at school. A Government officer on behalf of these minors protested against such practice and asked to file exceptions and proceed in all of these cases. I am informed that the judge did nothing.
A guardian had a ward, Sam Bighead, a full-blood Indian boy five years of age, who owned 560 acres of valuable land, much of which produced oil. Eighty acres of this land was sold for the sum of $10,000.00 cash. Although this boy owned 480 acres of land and $10,000.00 cash, he was placed in the Creek Orphan Asylum where he died May 18, 1910. This boy, entitled to proper care and treatment, was placed with the children of paupers. Why the guardian wished to have on hand such a large sum of cash, all of which was unnecessary for the maintenance of the ward, since the ward was a public charge, passes comprehension.
When the poor boy died, there was left of this $10,000.00, $2,884.30 in cash, and a $5,000.00 loan on first mortgage.
Death did not stay the actions of the guardian; he became appointed administrator. As administrator he accounted for $11,424.30. He reported that $6,074.96 was the balance on hand of the estate. Of this sum $5,627.00 was divided into four equal parts for four heirs. However, the Government special agent Farrar contends that in three of these cases attorney fees of 25% each were charged. So finally, out of the estate of $11,424.00, $4,405.85 was placed in the hands of the heirs. How can some Oklahoma citizens clamor for withdrawal of Government supervision after reading this story?
A man named Jerry Bunce was guardian of an Indian boy (Choctaw) named Tonihka. Some of the inherited land of the boy had been sold by the guardian through the probate court, and there were in the possession of the guardian funds belonging to his ward amounting to $1100. The guardian bought a cow and calf for the ward; the boy slipped the calf away and sold it and with the proceeds bought him some clothes. The guardian employed an attorney and had the boy arrested charging him with larceny of the calf. Other attorneys were employed to defend the boy. The guardian paid the attorneys on both sides of the case $900 of the boy’s money—one side for prosecuting and the other side for an alleged defense; when the case came up for trial the attorney defending plead guilty for the boy, who was convicted without a word of evidence, and sent to the reform school. Bunce died, and his successor as guardian told my informant the above facts, and said that when he talked with the attorneys involved they treated the matter as a great joke.
In 1910 a full-blood Choctaw Indian named Simon Wakaya was found dead and charred in the ashes of his cabin. An investigation showed that he had been shot before the cabin was burned. This Indian had dealt in cattle and owned a small herd of stock in addition to his allotment. Two or three days after the death, there was filed in the county offices a bill of sale conveying all of his cattle to a man named Bill ——.[[26]] At the same time there was filed for probate in the county court, a will purporting to have been executed by Wakaya conveying his allotment to Henry ——.[[26]] A Government representative satisfied himself that the will was a forgery and induced a relative to contest the will. After a preliminary hearing occurred in the county court, the matter was appealed to the district court and full disclosure of all the facts was had.
The judge issued a bench warrant, charging them all with murder, perjury, forgery and arson. These men gave bond at the time and for two years they have been at liberty and have never been brought to trial. This last remark merely illustrates the apathy of the white people of this State in matters involving the welfare of the Indians. It is a fact demonstrated a hundred times a day in this State that the white population cares very little about the rights of the Indians and it is difficult to secure a conviction of white people for many felonies committed upon Indians. This is most frequently illustrated in the matter of forgeries in the securing of pretended deeds from unrestricted Indians. Upon failure to secure a deed the white man is not yet at the end of his resources, for he can still either forge a deed or get some Indian or freedman to impersonate the owner of the land and execute a conveyance, acknowledge it before a notary and have it recorded.
A full-blood Cherokee, now about twenty-six, was allotted valuable land in the vicinity of Bartlesville. She had no relatives, and at the age of four years she was taken into the family of a white man, but not formally adopted. When the allotments were made he was appointed her guardian. When she became of age he was discharged. During his guardianship about $4500.00 came into the guardian’s hands as guardian. Upon a final accounting he filed receipts for over $2,000 as having been paid to his ward, but which it is claimed he admitted really never was paid to her.
When this girl became of age a new oil lease was made with her for which a bonus of $8,000 was paid, which money went into the hands of the guardian and which it is alleged he likewise admitted he diverted to his own use. It is also claimed that approximately $2500 royalty has been received by the guardian for this girl. It is claimed that the guardian has admitted that he owed this girl approximately $20,000. The ward lived in the home of her guardian ostensibly as a servant. She is of weak mind and really an incompetent. In September, 1910, the guardian secured a divorce from his wife, and afterwards, it is claimed, continued to live with his ward.
As an illustration of the extremes to which these grafters sometimes resort, my attention was called to a case of an adult who had died and left a valuable property. In order to get large allowances from the estate padded expense accounts were put in for the burial robes, metallic caskets, etc., although the relatives who attended the burial stoutly insisted that only a box, and the cheapest clothes were used. In this instance, the grafters, knowing that an investigation was to be made, exhumed the body and placed same in a metallic casket, and carried off and destroyed the pine box in which the burial had originally been made!
Miss Barnard found a pauper child in an almshouse. Investigation proved that the guardian disposed of a valuable “oil allotment” for $50,000. Instead of using a part of this money for the child’s education, he appropriated it to his own use. A portion of the money was recovered and the child placed in an educational institution.
Indians about to become of age possessing valuable allotments, were taken to remote points—Denver, Minneapolis, etc. Henry Purchase was taken to St. Louis, and detained until he signed a deed to his property. Marcus Corey was found by Secret Service men in Southampton, England, and returned after much trouble to his parents. Marcus possessed property worth $40,000.
Cases are on record where Indians were poisoned, or confined in rooms in obscure hotels, until they signed away their property. The ignorant were easy prey to the grafters, as this newspaper clipping of 1913 attests:
Oklahoma City, June 25.—In an opinion handed down today by Associate Justice Jesse Dunn, of the supreme court that body holds that two Mississippi Choctaw Indian girls who were so ignorant that they would have sold their allotments on which were valuable asphalt deposits and which are worth $40,000 for $850 came under the statutory terms of mentally incompetent persons and that the county court of Marshall County should appoint a guardian for them. The girls admitted that they could neither read nor write, did not know when their mother died or how many $5 bills it would take to make a hundred.
In most States guardian and administrator fees range from as low as 2% to as high as 5% or 6%. In Oklahoma, the administrators and guardians charged from 3% to as high as 80% for service and costs in settling up the affairs of these defenseless people. I present a random page from Mr. Mott’s long report. This was included by the Honorable Mr. Burke in his speech.
SHACK OF A POOR CREEK INDIAN, OKLAHOMA
Photographed in 1913
In defending such charges, one gentleman claimed that some of these estates consisted of small tracts, widely scattered. Therefore, the charges must of necessity be high. This is true of very few cases, especially since small tracts widely separated were rarely ever sought after by the grafter guardians, who in some localities were opprobriously designated as professional guardians. The figures speak for themselves, and should be considered by every thoughtful man and woman in this country, as they tell a story of robbery unparalleled in American history.
No. 626. Amount handled, $2,085, at cost of $1,494.93, or 71.2 per cent.
Nos. 1411–1412. Amount handled, $65,266.92, at cost of $19,315.23, or 29.4 per cent.
No. 1133. Amount handled, $3,286.94, at cost of $1,721.52, or 52.3 per cent.
No. 1556. Amount handled, $41,502.16, at cost of $21,953.60, or 52.8 per cent.
The following cases will be found in McIntosh County, Exhibit C:
No. 32. Amount handled, $1,328.52, at cost of $937.89, or 70.5 per cent.
No. 310. Amount handled, $600, at cost of $305.50, or 50.9 per cent.
No. 359. Amount handled, $1,960, at cost of $695.50, or 35.4 per cent.
No. 428. Amount handled, $17,944.26, at cost of $3,043.07, or 16.9 per cent.
No. 669. Amount handled, $1,787.50, at cost of $609.49, or 34 per cent.
In Exhibit D, for Tulsa County, will be found the following cases:
No. 7. Amount handled, $14,944.37, at cost of $3,267, or 21.8 per cent.
No. 110. Amount handled, $2,094.28, at cost of $1,274.75, or 60.8 per cent.
No. 273 (a). Amount handled, $9,520.12, at cost of $2,487.67, or 26.1 per cent.
No. 273 (c). Amount handled, $29,296.76, at cost of $6,523.15, or 22.2 per cent.
No. 1014 (b). Amount handled, $19,534.12, at cost of $3,644.30, or 18.6 per cent.
Exhibit E, for Creek County, contains the following cases:
No. 16. Amount handled, $13,675.37, at cost of $3,099.60, or 22.6 per cent.
No. 36. Amount handled, $54,968.10, at cost of $10,650.43, or 19.9 per cent.
No. 182. Amount handled, $64,863.42, at cost of $11,810.59, or 18.2 per cent.
(The above three cases were under the same guardianship).
No. 42. Amount handled, $1,740, at cost of $793.75, or 45.7 per cent.
No. 188. Amount handled, $1,347.78, at cost of $759.37, or 56.3 per cent.
The cases below will be found in Exhibit F, for Okmulgee County:
No. 10. Amount handled, $8,688.21, at cost of $2,243.85, or 25.8 per cent.
No. 280. Amount handled, $2,855, at cost of $1,038.82, or 36.3 per cent.
No. 152. Amount handled, $1,321.50, at cost of $1,196.50, or 90.5 per cent.
No. 136. Amount handled, $2,026.55, at cost of $778.95, or 38.4 per cent.
No. 540. Amount handled, $2,570, at cost of $1,684.64, or 65.5 per cent.
In Exhibit G, for Okfuskee County, will be found the following cases:
No. 271. Amount handled, $3,270, at cost of $911.96, or 27.8 per cent.
No. 237. Amount handled, $698.60, at cost of $364, or 52.1 per cent.
No. 179. Amount handled, $3,208.05, at cost of $983.10, or 30.6 per cent.
No. 98. Amount handled, $1,674.40, at cost of $482.57, or 28.8 per cent.
I also call attention to the following cases found in Exhibit H, for Hughes County:
No. 223. Amount handled, $2,372.50, at cost of $909.58, or 38.3 per cent.
No. 305. Amount handled, $4,939, at cost of $1,147, or 23.2 per cent.
No. 480. Amount handled, $1,950, at cost of $717.95, or 36.8 per cent.
No. 984. Amount handled, $2,847.79, at cost of $744.44, or 26.2 per cent.
No. 1039. Amount handled, $806.40, at cost of $407.64, or 50.5 per cent.
It will thus be seen that these methods and practices apply generally throughout the Creek Nation, and while they may exist in a greater degree in one county than another, the general situation is substantially the same. It is reasonable to presume also that in that large number of cases, as above pointed out, to wit, 4,339, where no reports of guardians have been made, and where files are out, equally bad or even worse conditions prevail.