.C8M6 ^°-;^ -3^ vp- .•^&'. %.^^ /Ji^'v \/ .'^■. %,s^^ :P%'' ?• . ^'"% . •^' ,/X ""^ A ^. .y ^^' o 0-' -^^ o ^'^ X^^ -^ . c « ^^ The Mississippi Chocftaw Claim. Washington, D. C, January 21, 1914. Statement of the delegates of the Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana Choctaw Council with reference to the follow- ing subjects: First. The nature of their claims. Second. The proposed legislation now pending before Congress. Third. Their need for relief. Fourth. The approval of their general contract. First. The Nature of Their Claims. From the time the commission appointed uhder the act of August 23, 1842, completed its work, in 1845, no roll of Mississippi Choctaws who remained in Mississippi under article 14 of the treaty of 1830 was made or kept until aft^r the passage of the Curtis act of June 28, 1898, section 21 of which provides that : "Said commission shall have the authority to de- termine the identity of Choctaw Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw Nation under article 14 of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded September 27, 1830, and they may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and perform all other acts necessary thereto, and make report to the Secretary of the Interior." The names of Mississippi Choctaws who received patents under article 14 of the treaty of 1830 and those to whom scrip was issued under the supplemental provision of the act of August 23, 1842 (5 Stat., 513), are found on pages 3 to 26 of H. R. Doc. 898, 61st Congress, 2d session. Pursuant to the authority of section 21 of the act of 1898 the Dawes Commission conducted hearings in the State of Mississippi, terminating on Fehruary 24, 1899, and pre- sided over by Commissioner McKennon. From testimony taken by him the commission prepared a report and roll dated March 10, 1899, containing the names of 1923 indi- viduals. Concerning these the report states: "Of these, there are two families, and probably a few other persons, who are mixed bloods, while all the others are full-blood Choctaw Indians. The com- mission finds that only a few families of these Choc- taws own land, while all are poor, ignorant and help- less — in almost every case susceptible of imposition and wrong at the hands of the white man, but re- markably peaceable, law-abiding and industrious. It is a rare incident that any one of these Choctaws is charged with the commission of a crime." Of the 1,923 persons identified as Mississippi Choctaws on this report of March 10, 1899, also known as the McKennon Roll, less than half, or 880, are now on the final citizenship rolls of the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma ; 1,063 are not on these rolls and are now claimants to an interest in the Choc- taw estate. Of this number 538 individuals were never placed on any other roll of identified Mississippi Choctaws, while the remaining 525 individuals, after re-examination by the commission during 1901 and 1902, were included in the rolls of identified Mississippi Choctaws approved by the Secretary of the Interior on February 14, 1903. In addition to the foregoing there were about 500 full- blood Choctaws who did not appear before Commissioner Mc- Kennon in 1899, but who made their applications and proof before the commission in 1901 and 1902, and were there- 3 after identified on what was known as the Roll of Identified Missisi^ippi Choctaws, approved February 14, 1903, by the Secretary of Interior, but who failed to remove within six months! thereafter and are therefore not on the final citizen- sliip roll of the Choctaw Nation. As there were 1,643 identified Mississippi Clioctaws who removed and are now Choctaw citizens, it appears that sub- stantially one-half of the Indians identified as Mississippi Choctaws entitled under article 14 of the treaty of 1830 are • denied their rights. This number is reduced to about 1,200 by deaths occurring during the period of eleven to fourteen years which has since elapsed. The classes of Mississippi Choctaws who have been identified but not finally enrolled are substantially as follows: First. 538 Mississippi Choctaws identified on the McKen- non Roll but not identified on the roll of 1903. Second. 525 Mississippi Choctaws on the McKennon Roll of 1899 and dso on the roll of identified Choctaws approved February 14, 1903. Third. About 500 other Mississippi Choctaws on the roll of identified Mississippi Choctaws approved in 1903 and sup- plemental additions in 1904-5-6. The Claims of the 538 Mississippi Choctaws on the Mc- Kennon Roll but Not on the Approved Rolls. The records show that these Indians were enrolled by the Dawes Commission after a full hearing of their claims; that the Dawes Commission discharged its duty under the act of 1898, section 21, by reporting a list of names to the Secre- tary of the Interior; that the Secretary of the Interior, in a promulgated decision, held that the matter of the approval of this roll would be suspended until the submission of the general rolls of the Choctaw Nation (decision of June 15, 1899) . That on November 27, 1901 , the Dawes Commi.^sion requested permission to withdraw the McKennon Roll and report of March 10, 1899 ; that the Department on January 9, 1901, and February 7, 1901, refused permission to with- draw the report and roll, returning to the commission one of the duplicate copies with instructions not to make any changes, ''but if it should appear that any of the names should be stricken from said schedule the commission should make a report to the Department embodying therein such suggestions and recommendations as the commission deems appropriate' for such action as the Department may con- sider necessary under the circumstances;" that on February 27, 1907, without any further evidence or consideration of these cases, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs rec- ommended the Department that "in order to finally dispose of this roll so that there may be no further question as to whether the people whose names appear thereon should be allowed to share in the distribution of the lands and funds of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations" it should be disap- proved, and on March 1, 1907, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with that recommendation, disap- proved the roll. All of these facts are matters of record and the names of the 538 individuals whose identification and rights were set aside and forfeited by this action of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior on March 1, 1907, without notice, without a hearing, and with no right or time for appeal or review, ex- cept in Congress, 4re contained in the letter dated December 30, 1911, with enclosures, from the Secretary of the Interior to the Honorable John H. Stephens, chairman of the Com- mittee of Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives. Before discussing in detail the action of the Department, briefly outlined above, we desire to quote the views of the Honorable Robert L. Owen with reference to this treatment of these Indians as expressed in the brief filed in the Court of Claims on his behalf on April 20, 1913, in which the following statement is found: "It will thus be seen that there was a secret under- handed opposition to the Mississippi Choctaws, be- cause it mii?t bo rcnicinhcrod that this roll of identi- fication made by the Dawes Coinniissicjii Mareii 10, 1899, and submitted by 'report to the Secretary of the Interior' was pigeon-holed for eight years and then disapproved, nritliout notice. This policy was niinous. for many of the Mississipj)! Cho<-taws, full- blood Indians, relied U[)on the Interior Department to advise them when their identification was complete, so that tliey might move to the Choctaw country with safety. The Interior Department held those identi- fied on this roll of 1899 in ignorance and uncer- tainty until it was too late to move and then disap- proved the roll. The gross injustice of this procedure is manifest and no pretense can be made that the controlling officials of the Interior Department really entertained any genuine sympathy with the enroll- ment of the poor full-blood Mississippi Choctaws. ''The Secretary also refused to approve any plan proposed to finance the removal of the Mississippi Choctaws who were too poor to remove themselves, although plaintiff Owen urged that it be done, from 1900 to 1903." ****♦*♦ "The report declares that the Mississippi Choctaws were poor, ignorant and helpless. This report in be- half of the full-blood Mississippi Choctaws, signed and submitted by the Dawes Commission, icas dis- approved eight years later by Mr. Secretary Hitch- cock on March 4, 1907, without notice or warning, so that no person upon this roll ever knew for eight years whether he was so far identified as to be en- titled to remove as an identified Mississippi Clioctaw, and finally the entire schedule was rejected without notice." These 538 individuals, if identified, w^ere entitled under then existing law to remove to the Choctaw Nation and receive estates worth in the aggregate about $5,000,000. The De- partment knew their helpless condition. It knew they were full-bloods, and that the only change in the law regarding their identification had been the sweeping provisions of sec- tion 41 of the act of July 1, 1902, to enroll all full-bloods. 6 It had no evidence before it other than the report of the commission that they were entitled to identification; that they were full-bloods, and that the majority were children. Yet the Secretary disapproved their enrollment, for the stated purpose of forfeiting their right to receive an estate of $5,000,000. It is true that the Secretary in taking this action states that "the Indian Office considers that in view of various changes made in the law since the date of this report or roll that it no longer has any validity." We challenge any one to point to a single change in the law having any bearing upon the identification or enrollment of these Indians other than the act of 1902, expressly recognizing the full-blood rule of evidence followed by the commission in preparing the McKennon Roll and confirming their rights to enroll- ment. This action of the Department, on March 1, 1907, when thousands of cases were being acted upon without time for consideration by the responsible officials, would have been impossible under other circumstances, with opportunity to examine the records of the Department and to appreciate the provisions of the act of 1902 directing the enrollment of the full-bloods in Mississippi. Second and Third Classes Barred by Failure to Remove. We only desire to present briefly two phases of the claim of these Choctaws. Their identity as Choctaws entitled under article 14 was settled ten years ago. They failed to remove within the time required by the act of July 1, 1902, and the only questions are — 1. Was that requirement as contained in the act fair or proper? 2. Were they entitled to Government aid which they failed to receive, and were they in fact prevented from re- maining by the agents of the Government? The first question requires the consideration of many factvS — the policy of Conp'css, the known inul)ilily of those Indiiuis to roMiove, the continuing force of tlieir agrecnK-nt expressed in aiticlc 11 of the treaty of 1 . Y o o r-\ n * . s • ' J- .0^ j^ 'V ^ •..?',?;? ^^ .'< ^ ♦ • • ' o c^ •>' "V, ^o. .•^^ \' > \ ,v %. V .<> v-^. \ ; .'^^'::^. .s'^^ ,0' *1 c>> "^o ■ * ^~ ■^' . .A, -^o /,. o .1 » ^o V*' • •\° ?.° ■^^. ■^^ -^^ ^o '• •."-o -^^^0^ : o ' . - . ^ .0- o ^°-n^. V -n^-o^ ,-^^ . . V' 40 "^^ > V .^ •:^ ' ,0 .v^" % V ■ ^^. v ^^ .f°' DOi^BS BROS. LIBRARY BINDING > ^ >^ v?""' ST. AUGUSTINE ^'tt, r^ V 4- J^^^ ^^■ Aq^ .0" .0 V-. .«; '