This is the largest body of Indians in the United States. They reside in
the State of Oklahoma and number, according to the Commissioner’s
report,[20] 101,216. The Five Civilized Tribes are composed of southern
Indians. A consideration of their tribal customs and ethnology will be
presented in the next volume of my history. While the Indians follow
some of their ancient customs, the bulk of them have so far departed
from the faith of their fathers, that it is advisable to consider their
present life and needs, rather than their past.
The report on these Indians for the year ending June 30th, 1913, and
signed by J. George Wright, Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes,
Dana H. Kelsey, Superintendent of Union Agency, and John B. Brown,
Supervisor of Education, lies before me. According to this, they are
divided among the tribes as follows:—
Cherokees 41,706
Choctaws 24,973
Creeks 18,700
Chickasaws 10,989
Seminoles 3,119
Mississippi Choctaws 1,639
These Indians are known by ethnologists to belong to the great
Muskhogean stock, and lived in the South, east of the Mississippi. They
constitute a third of our Indian population. As to why they were
removed—that is another story. Suffice it to say that the year 1850
found them in that region known as Indian Territory. Here they located
upon large tracts of tribal land amounting to 19,475,614 acres.
Treaties setting forth that they were to remain in undisturbed
possession of their new homes were duly signed by the United States
Government. Although the treaty of 1866 stipulated that they were
entitled to send a delegate to our Congress, when Congress authorized
the admission of a representative from Indian Territory, and in spite of
the fact that some of the tribes made an effort to bring about this
result, nothing effectual was ever accomplished.
May 2, 1890, the laws of Arkansas were extended to cover Indian
Territory, and March 3, 1901, every Indian of the Territory was declared
to be a citizen of the United States.
March 3, 1893, President Cleveland appointed the famous Dawes
Commission. This undertook to allot to all the Indians of the Five
Civilized Tribes lands in severalty. There were 200,000 claimants and
about 90,000 were allotted.
Although I am tempted to present a mass of statistics and facts proving
that these most advanced Indians were robbed and despoiled, without let
or hindrance, that the treaties made with them were cooly set aside,
statehood promises broken, and finally even the very farms and tracts,
on which they were to live as citizens and enjoy the blessings of
liberty and equality, were taken away, I must confine myself to a
consideration of the subject in its broad aspect.
It is stated by apologists that Indian Territory became an impossible
country in which to live, that crime was rampant, and that the Five
Nations included among their membership thousands of outlaws and
robbers. This is a gross exaggeration. There were some hundreds of
undesirable citizens who made Indian Territory their habitat from just
previous to the Civil War to about the year 1880. Most of these were
white men, although there was a sprinkling of mixed-bloods and that
worst citizen, the individual whose blood is made up of a mixture of
negro, Indian and white. The older Indians, who are more competent to
judge, and many of the white persons who long ago settled in Oklahoma,
maintain that while this class of citizens caused a good deal of
trouble, yet on the whole the Indians were vastly better off between the
years 1855 and 1900 than they are at the present time.[21] There was
some violence, murder, train robbing and attendant evils. As against
this, however, the great body of Indians were self-supporting, there was
no general graft, and very little pauperism.[22] There is evidence of
the correctness of this statement even at the present time. In traveling
through Oklahoma, overland, for 600 miles, I noticed in scores of places
the type of house erected by the Indians forty or fifty years ago either
still standing or in ruins. Their houses were superior, as a rule, to
the present flimsy, cheap structures erected either by the natives
themselves, or by Government or State employees for the Indians. The old
houses were of logs, or heavy boards, the walls being thick. They were
thus cool in summer and warm in winter. Near every house was an orchard.
The tracts owned by the Indians were extensive, and cattle, horses and
hogs had free range. Thus, every Indian family was assured necessary
beasts of burden and meat for winter use. Now that the allotments have
passed into the hands of white persons, or are restricted in size, or
are leased, practically everything is fenced, there are no ranges of
consequence; the old-style house is gone, the trees in the orchards have
decayed and fallen, or are cut down, most of the remaining orchards are
those of white people, although, of course, a few Indian orchards
survive. The houses built for the Indians, or by them, are wretched
affairs, small, the walls thin, and not substantial. They are hot in
summer and cold in winter.
The Indians having settled down in Oklahoma under their various tribal
governments, made great progress.[23] They published papers in their own
language. The Cherokee capital at Talequah contained creditable
buildings—a good administration building and two fine Indian schools,
which may be seen on pages 138 and 146. This school, by the way, built
by the Cherokee Indians with their own money, is now occupied by white
pupils. It was the finest building I observed in all Oklahoma, and it is
a standing repudiation to the statement that the Indians were not
progressing and that they did not afford proper educational facilities
to their own people.
At the end of the Civil War, a number of outlaws belonging to guerilla
bands, both North and South, came into the State. White persons migrated
to the country and occupied it. The Indians complained, and our
authorities at Washington made a few abortive attempts to keep them out,
but, as inevitably, the whites dominated. The Dawes Commission was
formed, and after years of negotiation and coercion, enrollment of the
Indians began. The rolls are now completed and include the totals
mentioned in my statistics upon a previous page.
There were a few Indians who held out against this arbitrary action on
our part, and right here I wish to pay a compliment to a few old men and
women, who were treated with contempt, who were called “Snakes” in the
Creek and “Nighthawks” in the Cherokee nation by the unthinking. Why?
For the reason that they have a simple, a child-like faith in the great
United States Nation. They believe that we will keep our pledged word.
They are not educated and therefore they cannot grasp the essentials of
our civilization as it applies toward Indians; that when we execute a
ninety-nine year lease among ourselves, we keep it; but that a solemn
covenant entered into with the Indians is a very different matter. So
these poor old Snakes and Nighthawks refused to be enrolled and to
receive allotments, trusting in the honesty and integrity of the Great
Father at Washington. One of the most pathetic sights I ever witnessed
in my life, was when old Fixico Harjo and Okoskee Miller, and a few
other fine old men, of the best type of American Indian, called my
attention to our solemn covenant with these people, stating that they
were helpless, that allotments had been forced upon them, that they
expected to see even these little tracts taken away from them, that they
could not understand the speeches of the clever, shrewd, oily,
forked-tongued lawyers and land-buyers who came among them; they asked
not charity but justice. The only thing in this world that was positive,
that was true, that was inevitable, was this fact: that every time they
touched a pen they lost something; that every promise made to them by a
white man was broken; that they had abandoned all hope save one—that
when they are gathered to their fathers, in the great beyond, they hope
to find some place where they may live in peace and contentment, as in
ancient days.
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.
[Illustration:
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.
[Illustration: © _by Rodman Wanamaker 1913_ _Chief Plenty Coups_]
“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.’
[Illustration:
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.”
-----
Footnote 20:
Report Commissioner Indian Affairs, 1913.
Footnote 21:
Indians of the Territory legislating wisely. Report Board Indian
Commissioners to President Grant, 1871.
Footnote 22:
Report of Indian Commissioners, 1872. Indians progressive and raising
large crops.
Footnote 23:
Capt. G. W. Grayson, official interpreter to the Creek Nation—lived
with these Indians sixty years—confirms statement of former well-being
and progress.
Footnote 24:
I have extra copies of Burke’s speech, and shall be glad to mail
copies to those who desire them.
Footnote 25:
See Reports Commissioner Wright and Superintendent Kelsey as to value
of oil properties—1909–1914.