A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I, Part 35

Author: Hill, L. B. (Luther B.)
Publication date: 1908
Publisher: Chicago : Lewis Pubishing Company
Number of Pages: 645

USA > Oklahoma > A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I > Part 35

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

long journeys and greater expense than they can undergo. In truth, for either of two or more claimants to go away would result in his being ousted by his rivals ere he returned; hence they turn to the only representatives of the government in this section who will, or can, afford them the least assistance. The action thus far taken is believed to be covered by the instructions received, which have in view the preserva- tion of peace and protection of property. Were such arbitration as contestants have received at the hands of the military de- nied them, they would, without doubt, re- sort to Winchesters to settle their disputes. As it is, they submit to the suggestions made them with the understanding that their legal rights are in no wise prejudiced thereby."

On the receipt at Washington of press reports that homestead and town lot entries were being made illegally in Oklahoma, and that government officials and others tem- porarily in government employ were con- niving at these frauds or themselves taking advantage of their office to secure choice parcels of land, the president and Secretary Noble immediately telegraphed to special department agents to make a thorough in-

are now proceeding to register for the lots pre- paratory, as we think, to effecting an entry upon said land.

"However that may be, we are assured that if a committee representing the business men of Oklahoma City take the matter in hand and ap- proach these contestants the matter may be amic- ably adjusted. We therefore ask that, pending these negotiations, the military force be made available if necessary to prevent a forcible entry upon said land. It is our understanding that the men who have now registered are men without lots or claims, and it is our desire and intention that said registry be respected, and that said land if opened for a townsite, be occupied. by settlers who are now without realty . . ·

" Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 33, 51st Cong., Ist Sess.

Digitized by

Google

230

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

vestigation of the alleged frauds and irreg- ularities. Most of the evidence14 turned over to the interior department as a result of these instructions was sent in by J. A. Pickler, inspector of the public lands serv- ice, who had been on duty in Oklahoma for some time before the opening.

The reports of Inspector Pickler estab- lish beyond controversy the principal fact that a great number of land seekers and speculators and townsite promoters were in the Oklahoma country before the time set for the opening, that the choice lots of the principal townsites were occupied and controlled by representatives of a corpora- tion organized especially for that purpose long before the opening, and that through the connivance or indifference of the land- office and military authorities these "soon- ers" were enabled to secure the choicest re- wards of the rush by circumventing or openly disregarding the rules of the game as played on the 22d.

Inspectors McBride and Pickler reported on April 27, from Guthrie: "About three hundred people were in and about Guthrie before 12 p. m. on the 22d inst. Two car- loads arrived upon Sunday evening, and many were here upon Saturday; a few deputy marshals were in and about the town limits for a week or two previous to the legal opening of the territory. This body of men was composed of deputy mar- shals, land officials, railroad employes, rail- road stowaways brought here in freight trains, deputy internal revenue collectors, and a host which cannot be classified."

John I. Dille, the register of the Guthrie land office, in an official reply to charges against his management of the office at the opening,15 gave the following account of

" Included in the Pickler reports to the interior department.

the establishment of the Guthrie land office and the first few days' developments in Guthrie :

"We were detained at Arkansas City with our supplies until Saturday afternoon, April 20, by the failure of our furniture to arrive and by the failure of the carpenters to have the office building completed. It was nearly dark Saturday evening before we arrived at Guthrie. When we arrived . . . hundreds of people were here and from that time on the number in- creased. Who were or were not officials, we did not know and had no means by which we could find out. The people as a rule brought their tents with them to sleep in. They were pitched without any refer- ence to streets, lots or alleys. The first few days Guthrie was a city of several thou- sand without a street or alley, and with tents covering almost every available space of ground. . . . Soon after the 22d the city authorities made a survey of the city, located lots, streets, alleys, etc. Several different persons were frequently on the same lot, many were in the streets and alleys. The city authorities compelled those in the streets and alleys to vacate the premises, and they all had to seek new lo- cations. The claimants for each lot have lessened in number, by mutual concessions, abandonment, etc."

The records of the land office, in the case of Guthrie, reveal that the townsite and the best land around it were entered at noon or a few minutes after that hour on the 22d of April. The east half of section 8, town 16, range 2, was filed on at 12 p. m., by Mark S. Cohn for the Guthrie townsite. The first homestead entry of the day was also made by Cohn, being the northwest quarter of the same section 8. The entries of Cohn and Jehu E. Dille (a relative of

Digitized by Google

231

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

the register) on the first day included seven quarter sections about the original town- site.

The "following state of facts at Okla- homa City" was reported by Inspector Pickler : "The Seminole Town and Im- provement Company, a corporation of the state of Kansas, as is claimed, of which J. E. Frost, of Topeka, who is land com- missioner or connected with the land de- partment of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, was the leader, and who claims to be the general manager of the corporation in Oklahoma territory and who did manage for the com- pany at Oklahoma City, and L. H. Cran- dell, secretary of said company, together with United States Marshal W. C. Jones and a syndicate from Newton, Kansas, who it is believed is a part of or interested in the Seminole Town and Improvement Company, entered the present townsite of Oklahoma City at or before noon of April 22, and secured for themselves and friends a large number of the best and choicest lots in said town."

In corroboration of this, the statements of two men employed at Oklahoma City before the opening were obtained as evi- dence by the inspector. The first, on May 5, witnessed as follows : ". I have worked at this place since the 8th of last August. I was in the employ of J. H.

" The Seminole Company planned to derive its revenue by issuing to settlers certificates for the lots included in the Seminole plat. It was said that $25 was the fee first proposed for each certifi- cate, but $10 was the amount paid for the one herewith reproduced:

"For value received the Seminole Town and Improvement Company hereby sells and relin- quishes to Arnold Brandley all right, title and interests that it now has or may hereafter acquire in and to lot No. 4 of block No. 19, in Oklahoma City, Ind. T., in accordance with said town com- pany's plat and survey thereof, and this certifies

McGranahan, who was the postmaster, and kept a boarding house prior to the 22d of April. . . . I was here on the 22d day of April, before 12 o'clock noon, and saw men surveying or staking ground in the present townsite of Oklahoma before the hour of noon. There were as many as five or six in the party. ." Another wit- nessed that "there were men surveying on the present site of Oklahoma City as early as 10 o'clock a. m., on the 22d day of April. They carried a chain and compass. Many lots were staked along what is now Main street, with stakes having papers fastened to them, before noon of that day."16

In summarizing the situation, with spe- cial reference to Guthrie and Oklahoma City, Major Pickler wrote, on May 8, from Guthrie: "The people feel that Mar- shal Jones, a resident of Kansas and not a bona fide settler, with his deputies and with influential parties in the Atchison, To- peka and Santa Fe Railway Company, and other speculators, unfairly gained entrance to the forbidden territory and fraudulently gained great advantages over the honest settler, and thus secured the most valuable property, while those who obeyed the law are beaten by the law-breakers in the race.

The establishment of the town of Ed- mond, and its experience at the hands of

the said Arnold Brandley is this day in posses- sion and the occupant of that said lot.

"THE SEMINOLE TOWN AND IMPROVEMENT COM. PANY, By . H. Crandell, Secretary. "April 27, 1889. " [Seal. ]"

" The matter of legal titles to city lots, of lot. jumping, and the "certificate" system, was the subject of a detailed message from Mayor A. J. Beale to the council on December 14, 1889. He said: "It is clear to my mind from the cases on the subject that the laws of the United States intend town lots on the public domain to go to the

Digitized by Google

232

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

two rival promoting companies, well illus- trate the methods pursued by the various townsite companies. The story is told by Inspector Pickler in a report dated May, 1889. "I proceeded to the town of Ed- monds . on the afteroon of Satur- day, the 11th [May]. I called a meeting of the citizens in the afternoon, represent- ing the different interests, from which I learned that before noon of April .22d a party of surveyors were at this point, did some surveying in forenoon of townsite, and continued Monday afternoon and for some two or three days afterward. This survey was in charge of a Mr. Shoop, from somewhere in Kansas, and was made for

actual settler in good faith. 'An occupant within the meaning of the townsite law of Congress is one who is a settler or resident of the town, and in the bona fide actual possession of the lot at the time the entry is made. One who has never been in actual possession of a lot cannot be said to be an occupant thereof. The occupancy may be for residences, business or for use.'-21 Pac. Rep., p. 818. . .

"The principal ordinances of Oklahoma City on this subject are in conflict with the laws of the United States. Ordinance No. 3 makes certifi- cates conclusive evidence of compliance with the law of settlement. The holder of a certificate of a vacant lot is conclusively presumed to have complied with every requisite of the law of the land. And ordinance No. 14 makes it a misde- meanor for anyone to question by claim the validity of his title, or to attempt to occupy such lot. These ordinances are in conflict with the letter and spirit of the laws of the United States, and persons undertaking to enforce them are making themselves guilty of the violation of those laws. It is needless to say they encourage specu- lation, false swearing and fraud. The pretense that a certificate conveys guaranty of title is a specious conceit. The only possible title at present is that of actual possession or occupancy for use. . . Our city council cannot make new and ex- traordinary regulations for acquisition of town lots. It may memorialize Congress or offer suggestions to the secretary of the interior, but until such regulations are provided by competent authority, they will hardly be considered binding by the land office or the courts.

"It appears, therefore, that so-called lot-jump-

the Seminole Town Company. . . . This company had a blue print Monday after- noon, 22d, of the town of Edmonds, as they laid off and surveyed the same, had certificates similar to the ones used at Oklahoma City . . . and asked settlers $25 a lot.

"Another survey was made on the same land . . . on Monday afternoon. .. This company invited settlers, but put the

. lots up at auction. . The surveyors for the Seminole Company . . about the time of the telegram from Commis- sioner Stockslager to the undersigned, ceased to offer to sell lots and abandoned the site. . . Settlers, however, arriv-

ing is reducible to one or the other of these divi- sions: 1st, where actual bona fide possession is assailed; 2d, where a pretended title to vacant property is sought to be impeached. In the first class of cases my duty as a peace officer is clear enough, and I shall use the power at my hand to swiftly interfere and punish offenders. The second is of cases illegal in their inception, and to undertake to defend them would be a flagrant abuse of power and contrary to the laws of the United States."

The mayor also recommends in this message the abolition of the ordinance providing for the pay- ment of what he deems an excessive fee for these lot certificates, and also the repeal of the ordi- nance that compelled lot-claimants to submit to arbitration and award rather than to regularly constituted courts. He then continues: "Had our settlement been left to ordinary usages and the laws of the land, nice distinctions concerning certificates and their value would never have been heard of. . . By this time titles might have been tolerably well settled, and if adjudication had to be made, temporary courts with the ordi- nary American system of trial by jury, instead of secret award, would have more readily gained the confidence of the people and litigants. Our sister city of Guthrie, I am informed, has found the adoption of these courts an available expedient, and if in the opinion of the council any great delay may intervene before the establishment of constitutional courts, I should gladly recommend the creation by election of these popular tribu- nals, with jurisdiction to try questions of actual possession, but not title to real property."

Digitized by

Google

233

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

ing and being displeased with the action of the parties who auctioned the lots under the second survey, began settlement on lots as surveyed and staked by the Seminole Com- . pany, where they could secure lots free. ..

"These surveys were in conflict, the streets and alleys of one being blocks and lots of another, and houses were built ac- cordingly in the street as claimed by one party under their survey, and this state of affairs having continued for several days · had engendered much ill feeling. . I insisted on a compromise, and that they must agree and proceed under one survey. The company making the second survey had captured the organization on Monday night, 22d, and elected a mayor and coun- cil, and had filed a declaration as to their site in the land office.

"The settlers claimed, many of them, that the election of this mayor and council was quietly done, and that many of them, al- though present in the town, knew nothing of the election." Partly with the advice and assistance of the inspector, a com- promise was arranged between the factions by which the mayor and council should hold office forty days from their election, when a new election should be held. A new survey was to be made, as sort of compromise of the other two, and all build- ings were to be adjusted to the new boun- dary lines.

A final word on the Oklahoma townsite problems was spoken by the supreme court of the United States on February 20, 1905, when that court reversed the ruling of the Oklahoma district and supreme courts in the McMaster case. When the agreement was reached between the Seminole and Cit- izens' surveyors (see J. L. Brown's nar- rative) and as a consequence Grand avenue

was moved from its course as first marked out, the new street ran directly over a line of lots which had claimants upon them, Frank McMaster being one. As a result of this revised plat, to quote the court's opinion, "the parcel of land claimed by the plaintiff was thrown into the street called Grand avenue. The plaintiff did not con- sent, but objected to the second plat, and has never consented thereto or acquiesced therein. He was, by the city authorities, forcibly removed from the parcel of ground selected by him, and has since that time been forcibly kept from the occupancy thereof."

The court reviewed the facts that no practicable provisions existed in law for the entry of townsites in 1889; that the law providing for trustees to enter the townsites and execute deeds to the occu- pants was not passed until May 14, 1890, over a year after the town was settled and laid out. The rest of the opinion has di- rect bearing on some of the questions at issue among the citizens :

"It seems, therefore, plain that a mere agreement among a portion of the people selecting lots for or in a projected town- site did not and could not vest an absolute and unconditional title in the persons who thus selected such lots. The persons going on the land on that date, and under the circumstances then existing, did not have any law for the vesting of title to a lot as within a townsite, by the mere selection of land at that time. There was general confusion, and there were thousands of people entering the territory embraced within the proclamation, on that date." The selection of lots was not final, nor the first plats of the town final or con- clusive. ". . . there was no absolute right to any particular lot, as it was sub- ject to future survey. . . When, there-

Digitized by Google

234

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

after, the trustees, under the statute, made a survey of the land into streets, etc., or approved a survey already made, by which the plaintiff's lot was placed in the public of the city, it was his misfortune, where all had taken their chances, that he should draw a blank. The approval of a survey by the trustees, which placed this lot in a public street of the city, gives the city the right to the possession of it, and to keep it open as such public street. The plaintiff, not being an occupant of the lot at the time that the trustees made entry of the land, nor when the conveyance was made to the trustees by the government, was not one of the parties included in the statute, which directed the entry for the townsites to be made by the trustees 'for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof.'"

The preceding account of events con- nected with the founding of Oklahoma City and the establishment of provisional government is drawn mainly from the offi- cial reports used in the investigation of the subject by Congress. In a matter involving so many diverse interests and factions, where order was evolved slowly out of the confusion attending the first settlement, it is, evidently, difficult to render, with exact justice to all, a straightforward account of the history of those first months. The greater part of the evidence used above is clearly unfavorable to the cause of the op- position party, or "Kickapoos," as they were generally called. In order that this history might serve as an impartial medium for the facts pertaining to this subject, a discussion of the Kickapoo side has been sought. For this purpose the author has requested Mr. J. L. Brown, a lawyer and resident of Oklahoma City from the begin- ning, to contribute a discussion of four phases of Oklahoma's early history. Mr.

Brown was a "Kickapoo" and one of the most active opponents of the party in con- trol of the city government during the early months. While frankly partisan in this respect, Mr. Brown describes conditions as he saw them with careful regard for his- torical accuracy, and his standing in the city and state entitles his views and opinions to full weight in describing the troublous days of early Oklahoma. His ac- count is as follows :

J. L. BROWN'S NARRATIVE.

I have been requested to furnish for his- torical preservation what I may know and may have seen touching the four following matters of general interest to the people of Oklahoma :

First. History and incidents attending the first opening of public lands for settle- ment in what is now Oklahoma.

Second. To explain and preserve the facts and transactions which cause so many jogs and crooks in the streets of Oklahoma City.

Third. To explain the causes and de- tail the facts which led to what was known as the Seminole and Kickapoo wars in Oklahoma City.

Fourth. To give a detailed account of the struggle in the first legislative assembly for the purpose of removing the capitol of the territory from the city of Guthrie.

No reader of history can understand these matters without having presented a statement of the laws and conditions exist- ing on and after April 22, 1889.

For many years before April 22, 1889, and up to May, 1890, what is now Okla- homa was then the Indian Territory. By treaty made just after the close of the Civil war with the five civilized tribes, who for- merly held the whole of the Indian Terri-

Digitized by Google

235

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

tory, the Indian tribes ceded back to the United States all that portion of what is now the state of Oklahoma, lying in what afterwards became the territory of Okla- homa, but such ceded lands were to be used by the United States for the purpose of set- tling other friendly Indian tribes thereon and were not to be opened to white settle- ment.

Under this agreement the United States settled on these.ceded lands various Indian tribes, and gave to each of said tribes a particular and well defined reservation, such as the Kickapoo, Sac and Fox, Cheyennes and Arapahoes and others.

These reservations given to other Indians moved into the Indian Territory under this treaty did not quite occupy all the lands embraced in that part of the Indian Terri- tory so ceded back to the United States and which afterwards became Oklahoma Territory, but left a piece of land, then known as unassigned lands, which em- braced that part of Cleveland, Oklahoma and Logan counties lying west of the Indian meridian, and that part of Canadian and Kingfisher counties lying east of a line very near where the Rock Island Railroad is now located, and also embraced that part of Payne county lying south of the Chero- kee outlet.

This fact led to the organization of what was known as the boomers, led at first by Captain Payne and after his death by Cap- tain W. L. Couch. These men got the title of captain by the boomers electing them as captains. These boomers conceived the idea that they had the right to settle upon and homestead these unassigned lands, but the government of the United States held that, under the treaty before named, no person could be permitted to settle upon those lands except Indian tribes, carried and set- tled on there by the United States.

Acting on this belief the boomers, under the lead of their captains, repeatedly in- vaded, settled upon and laid out towns on these unassigned lands, and were as often removed by force by the United States military authorities. After being thus ejected repeatedly the boomers camped around in the southern edge of Kansas. All this kept up such an agitation that these unassigned lands were prominently called to the attention of the public and led to a fight in Congress to open the same for set- tlement.

The result of all this was that the United States, by treaty with the Seminole and Creek Indians, to whom these unassigned lands originally belonged as a part of their old reservation, purchased from those tribes and obtained title to all of their lands lying west of what afterwards became the eastern line of the territory of Oklahoma.

This, together with the treaty made with the Cherokees, removed from all the lands that afterwards became old Oklahoma, all claim of the five civilized tribes thereto, but still left a large portion of Oklahoma land encumbered by treaties made with these other Indians, who had been brought in and settled on these lands by the United States, and these lands so settled by these imported Indians could not be opened to white settlement until the claims of these Indian settlers had been extinguished, but these unassigned lands then became the public domain of the United States, unen- cumbered by any Indian treaty whatsoever, and were by Congress opened to white set- tlement in 1889.

The trouble caused by the boomers rush- ing upon these lands before they were opened to settlement led to the provision in the acts of Congress opening these un- assigned lands to settlement of a clause de- claring that if any person should "enter

Digitized by Google

236

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

upon and occupy" any of these lands prior to the date of the opening thereof, that such person should forever be disqualified to take title thereto. This was known as "the Sooner clause," and was the one which afterwards made so much trouble in Oklahoma.

The foregoing explained why such a small portion of Oklahoma was opened for settlement in April, 1889, and as the claims of one Indian tribe after another was ex- tinguished to the lands upon which they had been settled by the United States, and were not all extinguished at the same date, the remaining lands were opened to settle- ment in patches or small tracts as fast as the rights of these .imported Indians could be extinguished, and this led to many "openings," as they were called, of public lands to settlement in Oklahoma.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I, Part 35

Author: Hill, L. B. (Luther B.) Publication date: 1908 Publisher: Chicago : Lewis Pubishing Company Number of Pages: 645

Author: Hill, L. B. (Luther B.)
Publication date: 1908
Publisher: Chicago : Lewis Pubishing Company
Number of Pages: 645