A history of the state of Oklahoma, Volume I, Part 52

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 52

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).

hearings is a complete review of conditions in both territories.

The Oklahoma statehood delegation re- turned to Washington year after year, and there was no let up to the agitation from that side. It has been said that when Okla- homans had no other diversion they called a statehood convention. Such conventions were held, from time to time, in all the principal towns of the territory, and each one supplied its statehood committee with a fresh lot of argument to reinforce that used before.

Ten years passed before the statehood movement had any promise of success. In the meantime more immediate problems were pressing for solution. In Indian Ter- ritory the efforts of the Dawes Commis- sion were unavailing until the Curtis Act of 1898, and a vast amount of negotiation and administrative work followed before that territory could be brought into a con- dition to receive statehood. In Oklahoma, during the financial panic of the early nine- ties, and as a result of crop failures, the settlers had experienced difficulties in pay- ing for their lands, and the mass of the population were poor and struggling. Of greater importance to them than statehood was the movement which became a local political issue in the campaign of 1896, to relieve the settlers of their remaining pay- ments on homesteads. This was the "free homes" legislation that was urged before Congress for several successive sessions, the champion of which was Delegate Flynn.2 It finally became a law, with re- sults that were described as follows : "Sav- ings that had been laid away to make the payments [on homesteads] were suddenly a surplus, and the effect has been seen in additions to the houses, new buggies and

? See sketch of Dennis Flynn.

Digitized by Google

342

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

trips to the old eastern homes. It [the bill] has given the first good hearty breath- ing spell enjoyed by thousands of families since the opening."

In 1899 a bill passed both houses of the Oklahoma legislature calling a convention to form a state constitution for Oklahoma and providing that the Indian Territory. should be added to the state by piecemeal. This bill was vetoed by Governor Barnes, for the following reasons: "The recent ac- tion of Congress refusing to ratify treaties with the Cherokees and Creeks, pledging the United States to a policy of continued separation of the two territories, is signifi- cant to the thoughtful mind and indicates a well settled and determined purpose in the minds of senators and representatives never to admit Indian Territory and Okla- homa as two states. And I feel sure that the ultimate destiny of the two territories is that of single statehood. This being true, to hold a constitutional convention at this time, to form a constitution for Okla- homa upon the lines laid down in this bill, would not advance the matter in the slight- est degree, but, on the contrary, would re- tard and hinder the growth of a healthful political sentiment in the Indian Territory in favor of such a union."

This brings to notice a very important phase of the statehood movement. For several years a large support was given to the proposal that Congress legislate for Oklahoma statehood alone, with a provi- sion similar to that contained in the terri- torial organic act that Indian Territory should be added to the state as soon as it was prepared for that condition. Undoubt- edly such a course would have been to the advantage of Guthrie and Oklahoma poli- ticians, since by the admission of Okla- homa alone and the subsequent piecemeal absorption of Indian Territory, the center

of government and political power would have remained on the Oklahoma side, and presumably about Guthrie as the capital. But no doubt there were more praiseworthy" motives behind this proposal. Evidently persuaded that the destiny of the two ter- ritories was joint statehood, and wearied by the futile efforts to obtain any kind of enabling act, the statehood agitators hoped by proposing a new solution of the ques- tion to hasten the day when Oklahoma should enter the Union, unimpeded by the slow progress of the Dawes Commission on the eastern side.

It would be impossible to state the exact proportion of public opinion in each of the territories for or against statehood, either separate or joint. In Oklahoma territory, beginning with the time when the question of statehood got into the larger realm of national politics, the local interests were complicated with the political phases of the matter, and opinion divided in most unex- pected ways. At first, while the movement was under. way to admit Oklahoma with the later addition of Indian Territory, the Republican party was committed to this form of single statehood, since, they rea- soned, Oklahoma alone would be a Repub- lican state. Guthrie, of course, being the center of the dominant party at the time, gave its support to this. On the other hand, Oklahoma City, as the business cen- ter, with its interests closely related to In- dian Territory, favored the single state idea without any conditions. At the same time the Democratic party in Congress, foreseeing in double statehood the addition of two Democratic states, naturally con- tended for the separate admission of the two territories. In this way, after state- hood agitation had taken on a political as- pect, unanimity of opinion became impos- sible, and from that time forward partisan

Google

Digitized by

343

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

discussion marked every step in the move- ment. On the Indian Territory side, in- terests were equally at variance. So far as those principally interested were con- cerned-the five tribes-a definite expres- sion of opinion would have been hard to obtain. Their affairs were just then un- dergoing reorganization and their political status was of less moment than the more immediate material concerns. As to the large body of whites, they were divided on the issue, though, the majority being Democrats, their preferences were ex- pressed for the measures advocated by that party.

As a result of the effort to get statehood for Oklahoma alone, along the lines indi- cated by the action of the Oklahoma legis- lature above noticed, Delegate Flynn had introduced a bill in the house, and con- tinued his support of this legislation until Oklahoma statehood became involved with the fortunes of Arizona and New Mexico. This gave an entirely new turn to the movement, and from that time forward those two southwestern territories clogged every step in the progress of Oklahoma toward statehood. Senator Quay, of Penn- sylvania, was the astute congressional leader who henceforth took command and held the fate of the four territories in his hands until death removed him from the arena of one of the most spectacular strug- gles ever witnessed in the halls of Con- gress. Senator Quay represented the in- terests that were supporting separate state- hood for Arizona and New Mexico. Those territories, especially New Mexico, had been seeking admittance to the Union for half a century. It is not necessary to state the grounds on which statehood had been withheld. It had been proposed, and a strong sentiment had developed in Congress in its favor, to unite these territories as one

state. But, as subsequent events proved, the corporate and other influences behind the movement that had Quay's support were directed to separate statehood, and all the political power and able generalship of the Pennsylvania senator were employed to bring about that result. Facing defeat so long as these territories alone were in- volved, he very shrewdly united the state- hood forces of all four territories in sup- port of the "omnibus bill," which had passed the house, providing that Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona should at the same time and under one act enter the. union of states. It was a clever plan, and all but succeeded. In previous years the senate had been the tomb of all Oklahoma statehood bills. But with such a leader as Quay, whose influence in the senate at that time was second to none, the success of the "omnibus bill" seemed assured, and the Oklahomans quickly rallied to its sup- port.

This was the situation at the beginning of the fifty-seventh Congress, in 1901-02. In the meantime, on November 12, 1901, a convention had been held in Indian Terri- tory, at Muskogee, representing presuma- bly the interests of that section in the state- hood question. The convention declared for joint statehood for the two territories, and Thomas H. Doyle was chairman of the delegation selected at this convention to present the subject to Congress. He assisted in the drawing of the bill which was presented in the house by Mr. Ste- phens, of Texas (known as the Stephens' statehood bill) and of a similar bill which Mr. Patterson introduced into the senate (known as the Patterson bill). These bills provided for joint statehood, and were in line with the memorial of the Oklahoma legislature, approved in March, 1901, de- manding the union of the two territories

Digitized by Google

344

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

as one state. An opposite course of legis- lation was demanded, in bills then pending before the national house and senate, in what was known as the "omnibus bill" (what was known as the Flynn bill was identical with the latter), asking for sep- arate statehood for each of the four terri- tories of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Indian Territory.8

At the non-partisan single-statehood con- vention, held in Oklahoma City in January, 1902, said to have been the largest ever held in either territory, some of the reso- lutions adopted will indicate the trend of opinion and the principal arguments used at that time.

' The prospect of success for the statehood move- ment in 1902 aroused opposition among the In- dians of the five tribes. It was claimed that the Indian lobby always present at Washington as a counter-check upon the statehood agitators was supported by certain powerful interests that had much at stake in retaining the territory as it was. However, the protest submitted through the in- terior department to the senate in December, 1902, presents very convincing arguments against state- hood for the eastern territory at that time. The protest is an important document in the history of statehood, and follows:

"WHEREAS, The five civilized tribes of the In- dian Territory have by agreements made . with the United States provided for the dissolu- tion of their tribal governments; and

"WHEREAS, The changed conditions brought about by such agreements require a complete revo- lution in our land tenure, and new laws and usages unknown to the Indians composing the five tribes of the Indian Territory, which conditions will re- quire time for the Indians to adapt themselves to the changed order of things; and

"WHEREAS, These changes were apparent to the contracting parties at the time of the making of said agreements, which is evidenced by the fact that a separate political organization was pro- vided for the Indian Territory, and the period for the dissolution of said tribal governments was fixed at March 4, 1906; and

"WHEREAS, Citizens of the United States, and not Indians, now resident in and upon the lands of the five tribes, are making by petition and lobby influence efforts to induce the Congress of the United States to ignore the letter and spirit

"We, the people of Oklahoma and In- dian Territory, in convention assembled, confident that organic union is our mani- fest destiny, again proclaim to the Con- gress that we favor the creation of a single state out of the area now embraced within both of these territories, and we offer the following reasons in support of our posi- tion :

"First. Oklahoma's area is 39,000 square miles ; that of Indian Territory only 31,000 square miles. The average area of the states and territories west of the Missis- sippi is more than 100,000 square miles, while that of Texas, our next-door neigh- bor, is 265,000. Our combined area will make a state less than 70 per cent of the

of these agreements by placing the Indian Terri- tory under the laws of Oklahoma territory; fail- ing in that, to organize a United States territory out of the present judicial organization known as the Indian Territory, either of which propositions would delay the work of the government as now organized and satisfactorily proceeding under the direction of the secretary of the interior for the fulfillment of the agreements referred to: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, By the duly authorized representa- tives of the five civilized tribes in convention assembled at Eufaula, Creek Nation, Ind. T., November 28, 1902:

"We are opposed to and protest against any legislation by Congress that contemplates the an- nexation of the Indian Territory, or any part thereof, to the territory of Oklahoma, or to any state; and we insist upon our tribal governments continuing intact and our tribal conditions re- maining unchanged until March 4, 1906, at which time, should Congress deem it wise, we ask that a state be formed out of the territory composing Indian Territory without the preliminary steps of a territorial form of government."

The protestants further declared that the regu- lations prescribed by the interior department were sufficient government until the dissolution of the tribes, in preparation for which event the people should, at the proper time, take steps to establish a state form of government. But in the mean- time, it was claimed, those individuals and organi- zations in Indian Territory asking for a terri- torial form of government or joint statehood with Oklahoma, did not represent the Indian popula- tion and only a small part of the white people.

Digitized by Google

345

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

size of the average western state, while taken separately we will be the two Rhode Islands of the west.

"Second. The resources of the two ter- ritories complement each other. Okla- homa is almost wholly agricultural, while the Indian Territory is richly endowed with mineral wealth, and the combination will make a state of unsurpassed variety and abundance of natural resources.

"Third. Single statehood insures larger taxable values and consequently lower tax- ation.

"Fourth. Single. statehood eliminates a crooked, wandering and fantastic boundary line, which now divides the two territories.

"Fifth. Single statehood confirms and cements a social fellowship already estab- lished by inter-territorial organizations of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Fed- eration of Woman's Clubs, the Masonic and other fraternities.

"Sixth. Single statehood confirms and cements a business fellowship already es- tablished by inter-territorial organizations of the cotton-seed oil manufacturers, the lumber dealers, the ice manufacturers, the grain dealers, the flour manufacturers and other business organizations.

"Seventh. Single statehood, finally, in- sures a state which will take high rank in this Union, and which we can bequeath to our posterity with pride and satisfaction."

As to the unsettled condition of Indian affairs in Indian Territory interfering with immediate joint statehood, the convention expressed itself as follows :

"The work of the Dawes Commission has been so nearly completed as to no longer interfere with immediate statehood; that commission has concluded treaties with all the Indian tribes, providing for the allotment in severalty of their lands, and authorizing the sale of all except the homestead. These allotments will prob- ably be completed by the time a state gov- ernment can be organized. The lands of

the Creek and Seminole nations have all been allotted. In the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw nations the lands have all been surveyed and classified, and the work of allotment is now simply clerical and should be completed within twelve months.

It therefore is beyond contro- versy that the work of the Dawes Commis- sion no longer interferes with statehood, and that there is abundance of taxable property.

"Congress can reserve such power over Indian affairs as it desires, and statehood will in no way interfere with the free ac- tion of the interior department in carrying out all the treaties between the government and the several tribes."

During the first session of the fifty-sev- enth Congress, in 1901-02, the house com- mittee on the territories had under consid- eration nine bills providing for the creation of states. There was an enabling act for New Mexico alone, one for Oklahoma alone, one for Arizona alone, one "to au- thorize single statehood for Oklahoma and Indian territories as the state of Okla- homa"; a similar bill for the "union of Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory"; another giving statehood to Oklahoma alone, and finally the bill (H. R. 12543) "to enable the people of Oklahoma, Ari- zona and New Mexico to form constitu- tions and state governments and be ad- mitted into the Union," which Mr. Knox, on April 1, 1902, reported with a recom- mendation that it pass. In the third sec- tion of the last-named bill it was provided that the constitutional convention should, "by an irrevocable ordinance," express the consent of the state of Oklahoma that Con- gress might at any time, or from time to time, attach all or any part of the Indian Territory to the state of Oklahoma.

A senate bill, with similar provisions to

Digitized by Google

346

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

those just mentioned, had been introduced during this session by Senator Quay. The house bill having been passed, no opposi- tion was expected to the measure, there be- ing a combination of Republicans under Quay's leadership and practically all the Democrats, sufficiently strong to pass the bill when it came to vote. The bill was referred to the committee on the territo- ries, of which Senator Quay was a mem- ber. The chairman of the committee was Albert J. Beveridge, of Indiana. Up to this time he had taken little part in the movement for statehood. But during the examination of the bill in committee he suddenly manifested extreme interest in the matter, and, instead of the bill receiving a perfunctory consideration and a favorable report to the senate, the young senator's inquiries had probed so deeply into the in- terests supporting the measure that he re- fused to report it out of committee. From that time on Beveridge was the stumbling block of the "omnibus bill." He swayed the majority of the committee and, despite all that the astute Quay could do, the bill remained with the committee. It developed during the committee's hearing, so it is al- leged, that certain railroad and corporation influences were backing the design to bring Arizona and New Mexico into the Union, and that it was not altogether a popular movement in the territories concerned. But just what the reasons were that caused Sen- ator Beveridge's opposition are not impor- tant to this discussion. The essential fact is that he held the bill in committee, against all the influences brought to bear upon him. On June 23, 1902, Senator Quay moved in open senate to discharge the committee, which would have brought the bill before the whole senate, where he had a majority to insure its passage. The vote on his mo- tion resulted in a tie, and adjournment of

Congress being at hand, it was finally agreed that the bill should be reported on the following December 10, and be con- sidered in the senate as unfinished business until disposed of. This was apparently a victory for Quay, since there was little doubt that he could hold his organization together until the reassembling of Con- gress.

Before adjournment Senator Beveridge secured the passage of a resolution that a sub-committee of the committee on terri- tories should visit the territories during the congressional recess, and on the evidence obtained base a report as to the prepared- ness of the territories for statehood. This sub-committee, consisting of Senators Bev- eridge, Dillingham, Burnham and Heitfeld, reached New Mexico about the middle of November, and during the following three weeks journeyed rapidly over the four ter- ritories, holding hearings in the principal towns or in their car as they sped along. Much criticism was directed against the su- perficial character of their examination and the haste with which the "junketing party" hurried over the vast area of the four ter- ritories. The senators stopped at only three or four towns in Oklahoma and In- dian Territory, barely three hours being de- voted to the examination of witnesses in Oklahoma City. None the less, the com- mittee gathered a voluminous amount of information from representative citizens in all the territories, and when printed it be- came the basis for the subsequent action of Congress.

Mr. Beveridge, for the committee on ter- ritories, on December 3, 1902, reported back the house bill 12543 (the omnibus measure) with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting instead a bill for the admission of Okla- homa and Indian Territory as a single

Digitized by Google

347

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

state, entirely ignoring New Mexico and Arizona. On December 10 a report was submitted by Mr. Beveridge supporting this action. At the same time Senator Quay presented an individual report in dis- sent from the views of the majority of the committee, his arguments being summed up in the concluding sentences of his report, as follows: "For the reasons, therefore, that the Republican party in 1900 promised statehood to the territories of Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma, while no such pledge or promise was made in the na- tional convention for the Indian Territory, which is not now fit for statehood, and that these territories. compare favorably in number and character of population, as well as in resources and territorial extent, with nearly all of the states admitted to the Union for many years past, and, in ac- cordance with the precedents of our his- tory, I recommend that house bill No. 12543 be passed without amendment." On December 15 a minority report, presented by Senator Bate, was submitted, following substantially the views of Mr. Quay.

The substance of the Beveridge, or ma- jority, report deserves a place in this his- tory. After presenting the reasons of the majority of the committee for opposing the entrance to the Union of Arizona and New Mexico, it calls attention in striking con- trast to "the preparedness of Oklahoma and Indian Territory," the great. body of the former territory being magnificently developed, while the less than 87,000 In- dians in the latter were being rapidly brought into a condition for absorption "in the body of our homogeneous citizenship." But the proposition to admit Oklahoma territory as a single state was not tenable. "Its size is much below that of any west- ern state. . . Its boundaries are unscientific, accidental and grotesque. And,

above all, the committee are convinced that a majority of its people are opposed to statehood at present except by a union with its natural complement, the Indian Terri- tory." Attention is called to the union of the territories by nature, commerce and "all human conditions." As to the exemp- tion of Indian lands from taxation and con- sequent burdens placed upon the Oklahoma side, it is argued that in two or three years at most Indian Territory could bear a pro- portionate share of public taxation, and that the inequity complained of was com- paratively insignificant. As to the argu- ments advanced by opponents of statehood that the citizens of Oklahoma are highly prosperous in their territorial condition, and that under a state government they might be subjected to burdensome taxation and reckless obligations in behalf of rail- roads and other improvements, the com- mittee admits the force of such reasoning. But, it concludes, "it seems to the commit- tee that these two territories should be ad- mitted to the Union as a single state. They have reached their manhood and should take on manhood's responsibilities. They do not need incorporation into the active political nation more than the active politi- cal nation needs them."

In November, 1902, the matter of joint or double statehood was an issue in the Oklahoma territorial election. The Demo- cratic platform declared specifically for single, meaning joint, statehood. The Re- publican platform endorsed the Flynn bill, granting statehood to Oklahoma and giv- ing Congress power to attach Indian Ter- ritory at some future time. The Repub- lican candidate (McGuire) construed this as a single statehood declaration, and con- tended that it was the speedier way of pro- curing statehood. Notwithstanding this construction, the single statehood sentiment

Digitized by Google

348

HISTORY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

reduced the Republican plurality from 4,724 to 384.

With the reporting of the "omnibus bill" to the senate, accompanied by the recom- mendations of the majority and the minority in the territorial committee, the contest which had begun during the previous session within the committee room was transferred to the more conspicuous stage of the open senate. There, during the following three months, was enacted one of the most prolonged "filibusters" in the history of our national legislature. Senator Quay with about a dozen Repub- lican adherents was united with the Demo- cratic minority in support of the bill. Opposed to them were Senator Beveridge and most of the Republican members, with several Democratic senators. Should the bill come to a vote, its supporters possessed enough strength to pass it. But by the ancient right of "senatorial courtesy" and the freedom of unlimited debate, the op- ponents of the bill could delay the vote as long as they could talk, and Senator Beveridge determined to "talk the bill to death."

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 52

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