The Crisis in Oklahoma
Whenever a crisis arises in the affairs of the Nation, there are always men to meet it, and while the forces of evil have conspired against the Indian, there have arisen a few champions, and we should not forget the service such persons have rendered. Some of them have gone down to honorable defeat induced by hatred, treachery, malice and the love of gain. Others continue in office, escaping the wiles of the enemy, not through a miracle, but through the arousing of the public conscience. Today there are some 2,000,000 people in the State of Oklahoma, and as in every other State, the great majority of them are upright citizens. They have not taken a firm stand for the Indian in the past, for the reason that they did not realize what was going on in the eastern part of their State. The grafters controlled a tremendous and effective propaganda. The extent of this is surprising, and I have received scores of circulars, copies of speeches, etc., as evidence of the determined action of those who covet the oil, coal, gas, asphalt, farm lands, and timber tracts of the Five Civilized Tribes. Every person who is endeavoring to bring about fair play in eastern Oklahoma was charged with being “perniciously active in politics”, if he lived in the State of Oklahoma. If he happened to reside in the East, he was either a “sentimentalist”, unfamiliar with Indian affairs, or guilty of besmirching the fair name of the State of Oklahoma. The better class of citizens in the State of Oklahoma became, at last, aroused to the deplorable conditions obtaining among these Indians and they succeeded in influencing not only the members of Congress but also the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs to call a halt.
The lengths to which a few people went in order to despoil the Indians seems incredible in this day of Christianity and civilization. Some men made contracts with Indians on a basis of fees of high percentage and sought to secure control of Indian moneys in the United States Treasury. Others made contracts with thousands of Indians to represent them in the sale of vast tribal estates—tens of millions of dollars—on a liberal commission basis. Others became guardians and administrators of estates; and there were thousands of these professional guardians. The thing became a national scandal. Covetousness overwhelmed eastern Oklahoma. Now and then some man sought to stem the tide. A judge was assaulted in court by a grafter. He called upon his court officers. They, sympathizing with the assailant, did not aid his honor, but merely looked on while the grafter beat the judge into insensibility.
An editor commented upon a certain county judge, before whom guardians and administrators had appeared, and told some plain truths concerning the manner in which minors’ estates were being dissipated. The judge drew a knife and stabbed the editor. In neither of these cases were the guilty persons punished. What went on throughout the length and breadth of eastern Oklahoma seems incredible. I refer readers to the various articles cited in my bibliography at the conclusion of Chapter XVI for details.
Matters became so serious that Hon. M. L. Mott, attorney for the Creek Indians, decided to sacrifice his career in that country in order to obtain justice. He sent the facts concerning the despoilation of thousands of Creek minors and incompetents to Honorable Charles H. Burke, Representative from South Dakota. On December 13, 1912, Honorable Mr. Burke made a speech in the House of Representatives which aroused the good people of Oklahoma and Congress itself to immediate action.[[24]]
Rev. J. S. Murrow, in charge of a large and successful mission at Atoka, Oklahoma, published a pamphlet, at his own expense, of thirty-nine pages covering the present condition of the Five Civilized Tribes and pleading that the ministers of the gospel residing in the State, without regard to denomination, do what they could to secure humane and just treatment for the Indians.
Miss Kate Barnard, Commissioner of Charities and Corrections for the State, also entered the righteous cause, exposing conditions among orphan children, and pointed out how that thousands of paupers would have to be supported by the National Government, or the State of Oklahoma, if more restrictions to the alienation of Indian lands were removed. As a reward for her faithful and humane efforts, Miss Barnard’s office is virtually abolished, since appropriations are cut off.
Grant Foreman is an attorney living in Muskogee. He has made particular study of the Indian situation and is entirely familiar with all the legal aspects, as well as the Indians themselves. Mr. Foreman has rendered valuable assistance to Mr. Mott, but has never held office in the State, or been employed in the Indian Service.
CHEROKEE FEMALE SEMINARY AT TALEQUAH, OKLAHOMA
Built with Indian money twenty years ago. Now used as a White Normal School.
The Department of Justice was represented by A. N. Frost, Esq., and J. E. Gresham, Esq. Both of these men proceeded against grafters, and both are out of the Service.
The Federal supervision of the Five Civilized Tribes has rested in Commissioner J. George Wright and Dana H. Kelsey, Superintendent of the Union Agency. These men have been years in the Service. They have shown high integrity, tact and wisdom in handling a most delicate situation. Under them are employed hundreds of persons—District Agents, teachers, clerks, farmers, matrons, etc. Because of the rapid expansion of the oil industry in Oklahoma and the discovery of new fields, many of the Indian allotments have become very valuable. Naturally, these are coveted by white men who never seek Indian property unless it is valuable. In this connection I wish to call attention to what, in Oklahoma, is considered a great joke on certain white men. Before the discovery of oil, these men secured, where possible, large tracts of rich agricultural land. The hilly sections were allotted to the more ignorant Indians, the shrewder selected the bottom-lands. Through the irony of fate, the richest oilfields have been discovered in these same hilly or worthless tracts passed up by the first grafters. So, in spite of all that has been done to seize Indian lands, many of the incompetent Indians receive large royalties from the oil wells.[[25]] As these incompetents are under Government supervision, bills to remove restrictions have been agitated. Many of the candidates for Congress ran upon a platform which may be described as anti-Indian—contrary to all State promises, sacredly made. I have original handbills, such as are used in Oklahoma elections. Mr. J. H. Maxey presents his portrait and says:
“The Government Must Pay the Taxes on All Non-Taxable Indian Land”; “The Affairs of the Five Tribes Must Be Settled.” Mr. Reuben M. Roddie is even more frank. Over his picture appears in large letters:—“Pay the Indians Their Money and Remove all Restrictions.” Mr. Roddie was defeated and the Hon. Wm. M. Murray, long a friend of the Indian, was returned to Congress.
Mr. Foreman prepared for me a comprehensive statement of conditions in Oklahoma. It is the best presentation of the subject that I have seen and I herewith include it, in the following eight pages.
“The lands of the Indians were allotted to them with restrictions against alienation or encumbrance. The Creek land was restricted to August 8, 1907; the Choctaw and Chickasaw lands could be sold one-fourth in one year, one-fourth in three years and the remainder in five years from date of patent. The Cherokee land could not be sold for five years. Out of each allotment a homestead was reserved, which under the law allotting it, could not be sold or taxed for twenty-one years. This was a condition agreed to by the Government in order to get the Indians to consent to the allotment of their lands. The Creek, Seminole and Cherokee homestead was 40 acres and the Choctaw and Chickasaw 160 acres. Directly after the allotting began, a great clamor went up from the white people to Congress to remove the restrictions on the sale of a part of the lands allotted. In response to this demand, on April 21, 1904, an act was passed removing the restrictions against the sale of the lands except homesteads of the adult members of the Five Civilized Tribes not of Indian blood, which included mainly freedmen citizens of the tribes and affected 1,500,000 acres of land.
“In the next month, May, 1904, President Roosevelt commissioned Mr. M. L. Mott of North Carolina to act as National Attorney for the Creek Tribe of Indians. This appointment was important to the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes, for Mr. Mott took a deep interest in their condition and became a forceful advocate for them; he was instrumental in impressing enactments upon the Federal statutes and securing from the Supreme Court constructions of the statutes that are essential to the Indians’ welfare and that will secure to them their property rights for many years beyond the time allotted by local consent.
“Soon after Mr. Mott assumed his duties he observed that a large part of the land made salable by the Act of April 21, 1904, almost immediately had passed into the hands of white people and the grossly inadequate consideration received by the allottees had been wasted. This was food for serious thought.
“In response to a popular demand Congress had removed the restriction against sale three years before the land was to become alienable according to the agreements under which it was allotted. The land and money had been frittered away. Under the law, all restrictions on the sale of all lands of full-bloods and mixed-bloods, except homesteads, of the Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, and Chickasaws were to expire by limitation within three or four years. In the light of the experience under the Act of April 21, 1904, it was not difficult to foretell what would happen when these restrictions expired under the impending statehood regime.
“To avert the calamity threatening the Indians, Mr. Mott bent all of his energies to securing an amendment of the law, extending the restrictions against the sale of all Indians’ land. In the face of strong opposition he failed to secure an extension as to mixed-bloods, but Congress was prevailed upon to pass a measure extending until 1931 the restrictions against the sale of all lands of full-blood Indians except under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. This was part of an act of April 26, 1906, entitled ‘An Act for the final disposition of the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, and for other purposes,’ which was framed to adjust conditions for the inauguration of the new State of Oklahoma, then practically assured.
“The section of the Act extending restrictions was known as the McCumber amendment. In urging its passage Senator McCumber read to the Senate an argument by Mr. Mott in which he made the statement that within thirty days after the Act of April 21, 1904, became effective, not ten per cent of the land made salable by that act remained in the hands of the allottees, and within sixty days not ten per cent of the allottees who had sold possessed a dollar to show for the heritage so improvidently disposed of. Senator McCumber and Senator Teller expressed doubt of the constitutionality of the amendment, but impressed by the necessities of the situation solved the doubt in favor of the Indians by voting for its enactment. The wisdom of this measure was vindicated and its constitutionality was established by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1911, in the Marchie Tiger case, reported in 221 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, page 738.
“This suit grew out of the fact that after August 8, 1907, conveyances were taken from full-blood Creek Indians on the theory that the McCumber amendment could not prevent it, in that Congress had not the power and had not intended to extend the restrictions to land so purchased. On the advice of Mr. Mott the Council of the Creek Nation made an appropriation for the purpose of testing this contention and authorized the employment of Mr. W. L. Sturdevant of St. Louis, who was retained by Mr. Mott, with the concurrence of the Interior Department, to aid in establishing in the courts the binding force of the McCumber amendment.
“The Oklahoma trial court held against the contention of the Indians and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma said that as the lands involved in the Tiger case were inherited, Congress did not intend to restrict the sale of them, and that therefore the constitutionality of the Act was not drawn in question; but the attorneys were convinced that the local courts did not see this Indian question in the light with which grave considerations of public policy and conscience illuminated it before the nation, and they appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. This court reversed the holding of the Oklahoma courts and established the force and effectiveness of the McCumber amendment, for the much-needed protection of the 40,000 full-blood Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes as to all their lands; the court said that it rests with Congress to say when its guardianship of the Indians shall cease and that it had not surrendered this right by creating the State of Oklahoma. This decision established the power of Congress in the future to impose such additional safeguards for the protection of the Indians in Oklahoma as their necessities may require. On the strength of the principle established in this case, the Government in behalf of the Indians brought suits involving 30,000 causes of action against white people who had taken deeds from Indians who were restricted under the McCumber amendment, the most of which are now settled favorably to the Indians.
“Oklahoma with 1,500,000 population, became a State on November 16, 1907, upon a pledge contained in her constitution that she would never question the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over the Indians and their lands or its power to legislate by law or regulation concerning their rights or property. Immediately she had a delegation in Congress and at once began a determined campaign for further repeal of the laws enacted for the protection of the Indians. The main argument employed was that the Indians were competent to care for their property and needed no legislative protection against improvidence; that the State could be trusted to afford them all the protection they required and that Federal guardianship and supervision should cease, as an interference with the personal privileges and rights of citizens of Oklahoma. And they made much of the fact that among the mixed-bloods there are a few individuals who are quite shrewd enough to look out for themselves.
“This fight was highly successful to the white contenders and resulted in the enactment of a law on May 27, 1908, executive July 27, 1908, repealing the restrictions on the sale of a large class of land including all homesteads of freedmen and of mixed-bloods of less than half blood, freeing from restrictions all told, over 9,720,000 acres. It provided also that all homesteads, as well as all other lands from which restrictions against sale were removed, should become taxable the same as lands of white people, whether sold by the allottee or not. This late act violated the terms of the agreements made with the Indians under which the homesteads of the Creeks and the allotments, or parts thereof, of the Choctaw and other tribes were exempted from taxation for a given period.
“While this measure was being opposed before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, in illustrating the disastrous policy toward the Indians that Congress was entering upon, Mr. Mott referred to the 8th day of August, 1907, when restrictions automatically expired on all lands in the Creek Nation, except homesteads, of all allottees of less than full blood. He stated that by one o’clock of the morning of the 8th day of August, deeds conveying one-half of the lands of the Creek Nation so affected were executed and delivered to well-organized land buyers, in many cases for inadequate considerations, and that these considerations were frittered away in a few weeks. This statement was not controverted.
“The part of this Act which undertook to subject to taxation the homesteads and other lands of the Indians was regarded as destructive of their property rights. The Indians had agreed to the allotment of their lands upon the condition contained in their treaties that certain exemptions from taxation should be observed. The Choctaw and Chickasaw lands were to be exempt while owned by the allottees. It was provided that in the Creek, Cherokee and Seminole tribes, a homestead of forty acres should be reserved from each allotment, which should be non-taxable for twenty-one years. This arrangement was favored by the Government as a wise policy of equalizing to the Indians the handicap under which they were about to enter upon a new method of living. It was seen that the destruction of this safeguard would bring disaster to the Indians as it would introduce a most insidious agency for divesting the Indians of their land under the power to sell for delinquent taxes; and it was realized that withdrawing the exemption was the arbitrary taking of property without due process of law, which the courts should be asked to prevent.
“These considerations were presented to the Creek Council by their attorney soon after the passage of the Act and upon his advice they again took an advanced position and decided to test the power of Congress to take away from them the right of tax exemption. A resolution to that effect was passed by the Creek Council in October, 1908, but it needed the approval of the President of the United States to make it effective. And here arose a peculiar situation.
“When Mr. Mott presented the resolution to Mr. Garfield, the Secretary of the Interior, and the President, they stated that they had approved and the President had signed the bill removing restrictions and making the unrestricted homesteads taxable. It was represented to the latter in reply that the Indians believed they were wronged by the Act, and that if the President refused to aid them in getting into court to have their rights measured and determined, the Indians would feel that the Government was not acting in good faith toward them and was afraid to have its actions inquired into by the courts. President Roosevelt admitted the force of their position and approved the resolution.
“Mr. Sturdevant again was retained to present this question to the courts, together with a similar question arising in the Choctaw Nation, the question being common to all the tribes. As in the Marchie Tiger restriction case the Oklahoma trial and Supreme courts held against the contention of the Indians. They decided that the Indians must pay taxes on homesteads as well as on all other land from which restrictions against sale were removed. Mr. Sturdevant, confident of his position, appealed to the United States Supreme Court and argued the novel question to an interested bench which handed down an opinion on May 13, 1912, reversing the courts below. It held that the Indians’ exemption from taxation was a property right that had become vested in exchange for a valuable consideration, to wit, the consent of each allottee to take his portion of land and yield any claim to all other tribal property, and that Congress had no more power to destroy, impair or withdraw that exemption than it had to take the land itself.
“In the opinion the Supreme Court stated a rule by which the rights of Indians should always be measured, whether in the courts or in Congress. It was said that ‘the construction (of statutes) instead of being strict, is liberal; doubtful expressions, instead of being resolved in favor of the United States, are to be resolved in favor of a weak and defenseless people, who are wards of the nation, and dependent wholly upon its protection and good faith.’
“Thus was settled a question of far-reaching importance to the Indians and particularly to those who have not sold their homesteads. Congress cannot take away from the Indians this right established by the Supreme Court. But Congress can repeal all the restrictions on the sale of all Indians’ land and expose them to their own ignorance and improvidence; if the present tendency continues, this backward movement will be completely consummated in a few years, and at present there is nothing in sight to indicate a change of policy.
“In a recent primary campaign in Oklahoma there were sixty candidates for Congress of both parties, from whom eight members were to be selected. Nearly all of these aspirants for seats in Congress solicited support on the promise that if elected they would work for the removal of all restrictions on the sale of all Indian land of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, and for the ‘emancipation of eastern Oklahoma from Federal supervision.’ And they were all in earnest for they knew that to be elected they must favor that policy, and the sentiment that sent the winners to Congress would exact a strict compliance with that agreement.
“It has been said by members of the Oklahoma delegation in Congress that the Indian question is a local question with which the rest of the country has no concern, and that the people of Oklahoma should be permitted to work out their own policy toward the Indian and solve the question in their own way.
“To a limited extent only is this true. The Indian question is a National problem which we assumed when we as a nation appropriated their land, took them under our protection and arrogated the right to control their destinies. We made definite promises to them and mutual agreements with them, in reliance upon which they consented to changes in their forms of living which the exigencies of our rapidly growing nation demanded. If in the next six or eight years these 40,000 full-bloods and more than 60,000 mixed-bloods and freedmen shall have frittered away their great estate and half of them are paupers, it will not be a State question merely—it will be a National scandal.
“A prophet need not draw deeply for inspiration to see in 1919 the Oklahoma delegation rising in Congress and demanding of the Government:—‘What of your stewardship of these Indians, these children of nature, whose vast property they entrusted to your protection? Fifteen years ago they owned in fee simple—by the same title that we own our homes—an estate which today is worth a thousand million dollars, and one-half of them are paupers. Look upon your work for just one generation. Their property was hedged about by every conceivable legislative protection. Treaty after treaty and statute after statute were enacted to secure the Indian against his own improvidence and helplessness by you, the Government, the only power in the world which could protect or despoil him at will. Then you began only a little while ago to tear down this protection and to expose him to perils with which he was inexperienced. You withdrew a little protection here, you tore down something there, time after time, and by your own deliberate acts the Indian was invited to pauperize himself until today he is a wanderer upon the earth. Did your previous one hundred years of experience with the Indians teach you nothing, that you might avoid rewriting some of the miserable chapters of history we have been trying to forget?
“‘He who in 1904 was the independent owner of broad acres of hill and valley, of billowing prairie, timbered mountain side and shady streams, has not land enough on which to erect a shelter against the storm, nor money to build it. His land is making thousands of fortunes annually and supporting millions of thrifty white people who know nothing of the Indian’s sacrifice and care less.’
CHEROKEE MALE ACADEMY NEAR TALEQUAH, OKLAHOMA
Burned a few years ago. The contrast between this dignified structure, and the glaring, modern school buildings has caused much comment.
“It seems clear that further removal of restrictions should be discouraged. Under the present law any land of the Five Civilized Tribes other than homesteads may be sold under the watchful eye of the Secretary of the Interior. There should be no objection to this method. True, before the Secretary will authorize a sale he investigates the proposed transaction and he must be satisfied that the Indian wants to sell, that he understands the deal, that the consideration offered is adequate and that it is actually paid to the Indian, or to the Department, for him—in other words, that the Indian is not defrauded.
“To say in the face of the experience of the past eight years that this supervision of the Indian is an unwarranted, unreasonable interference with the rights of citizens of a sovereign State, is the shallowest sophistry. Under the wise policy of the Interior Department the consideration paid for lands of a restricted Indian is received by the Department and expended in the construction of improvements on his homestead and for farm implements, livestock and other necessities of life. Or the money is turned over to the Indian in small instalments, the exact course to be pursued in each case being determined by an investigation of the Indian’s capacity and needs. In this way his money is not foolishly spent and he is not cheated by unscrupulous white men who too often take advantage of the Indian’s ignorance and improvidence. Certainly this cannot be objected to by the good people of Oklahoma who have no desire to see the Indian plundered.
“The decisions of the Supreme Court have established the right of Congress to pass all needful laws for the protection of these Indians and to impose necessary supervision of their affairs, and have hereby clearly shown that Congress alone is responsible for the fate of these friendless people. The objective point of assault will be the next Congress. Will it be able to resist the pressure that will be brought to tear down the pitiful remnant of protection that remains to these wards of our country? The attitude of the Supreme Court and the Interior Department has placed the whole Nation under obligation to them, for they have saved us as a people from standing pilloried before mankind as entirely faithless to our fair promises made to a weaker people. If their illustrious example shall awaken the legislative conscience, the Indians who are yet restricted need not view with despair the convening of another Congress. But if the present tendency is not arrested, within five years these Indians will be stripped of every measure of protection against their own incompetency. Our wards who less than ten years ago were in the full enjoyment of all their property rights will have experienced a swift impoverishment without parallel in our history.”