USA > Oklahoma > A standard history of Oklahoma; an authentic narrative of its development from the date of the first European exploration down to the present time, including accounts of the Indian tribes, both civilized and wild, of the cattle range, of the land openings and the achievements of the most recent period, Vol. II > Part 16
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).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
With that he made a sweeping gesture which included his dig- nified fellow delegates and laughed till his ponderous frame quiv- ered. The visiting Indians looked ashamed, serious and amused all at one and the same time while the other delegates gazed upon Soggy with amazement. It was his first oration in English.
With dogged perseverance, Representatives Springer, Weaver and the other champions of the Oklahoma Bill struggled to secure a vote on the measure, but the house committee on rules was con- trolled by men who were hostile to same, though it had been on the calendar and entitled to consideration for many weeks. It was therefore arbitrarily refused the privilege of a report or a hearing on the floor of the House. Meanwhile, the session was drawing to a close and other important legislation was demanding consideration
607
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
and the chances of the Oklahoma Bill were growing more doubtful as the days went by. Finally, in sheer desperation, Representative James B. Weaver, of Iowa, led in a resort to filibustering tactics until, very reluctantly, the committee on rules was forced to abandon its arbitrary position and consent to the consideration of the Oklahoma bill.
The Springer bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 148 to 102, February 1, 1889. In the Senate it was debated and referred to the committee on territories, which submitted a favorable recommendation, without amendment, February 18, 1889.3 One week later, Senator Shelby M. Cullom, of Illinois, tried to have it called up for consideration but was unsuccessful on ac- count of other measures which had precedence over it.4 Saturday, March 2d, arrived and no further progress had been made. Inaction probably suited the opposition to the Oklahoma Bill better than negative action, since it did not put them on record. Although it looked as if the measure was doomed to failure, its leaders and back- ers were not lacking in resourcefulness at this critical juncture. As- sured of the friendship of a strong majority in the House, they naturally turned to that body in their extremity. An amendment to the Indian Appropriation Bill (which had not yet been passed), was hastily prepared, providing for the opening of the unassigned lands to settlement under the homestead laws. No attempt was made to include provisions for territorial government. Thus amended, the measure passed the House late in the last day of the session. The Senate strongly objected to this course of pro- cedure but in the end it was forced to accede or see the Indian Appropriation Bill fail of enactment. The President of the United States was also authorized to create two land districts and locate the land offices.
3 Congressional Record, Fiftieth Congress, Second Session, p. 2010.
4 Ibid., p. 2287. The account above given differs materially from the version of Sidney Clarke, which appears in "A History of the State of Oklahoma, " by Luther B. Hill, pp. 177, 178. As the writer hereof personally received substantially the same version from Mr. Clarke, it was presumed to be correct until a consultation of documentary sources of information proved it to be otherwise. Senator Preston B. Plumb of Kansas made no speech until the Indian Appropriation Bill, with the Oklahoma amendment attached, came up for consideration in the Senate, when he took occasion to criticise some details of the measure and, incidentally, to call in question the motives of some of the promoters of the same.
1
608
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
The amendment to the Indian Appropriation Bill, briefly stated, provided that the unoccupied lands of the tracts ceded to the Gov- ernment by the Creek and Seminole nations should thenceforth be regarded as a part of the public domain of the United States and. as such, subject to homestead entry from and after a date to be set by an executive proclamation which should prescribe needed rules and regulations to cover possible contingencies.
A FEDERAL COURT IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY
In addition to passing the Indian Appropriation Bill with the provision for the Oklahoma land opening as an amendment, pro- vision was also made for the establishment of a Federal Court in the Indian Territory. Thus, nearly twenty-three years after the negotiation of the treaties of 1866, by the terms of some of which the creation and maintenance of such a tribunal had been promised, the people of the Indian Territory could at last have access to a Federal Court without the necessity of going into a neighboring state. The seat of the new court was fixed at Muskogee and pro- visions were made for the appointment of a judge, prosecuting attor- ney, marshal and other necessary officers and employes. The crim- inal jurisdiction of the new court was limited to such offenses as were not punishable by death or imprisonment, all cases of that character, as theretofore, to be tried at Fort Smith, or Paris.
The act provided that the court should have jurisdiction in all civil cases between citizens of the United States who are residents of the Indian Territory, or between citizens of the United States who are residents of any state or territory therein, or any person or persons residing or found in the Indian Territory, and when the value of the thing in controversy, or damages or money claimed, should amount to $100.
The code of the state of Arkansas was to be adopted, as far as practicable, as to practice, pleading, forms, etc. In cases wherein the amount in controversy was equal to $1,000, appeal might be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. Two terms of court were to be held each year, beginning respectively on the first Mondays of May and November.
It was provided that all proceedings of the court should be had in the English language; that bona fide male residents of the Indian Territory, over twenty-one years old and understanding the English language sufficiently to comprehend the proceedings of the court, should be competent to serve as jurors but subject to exemptions
609
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
and challenges as provided by law in regard to jurors in the western district of Arkansas.
INDIAN LAND CESSION AND THE OPENING PROCLAMATION
The Creek and Seminole nations, which had formerly held a fee simple title to the lands of the unassigned district and to those of that part of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Reservation situated north of the Canadian River, had ceded the same to the Govern- ment by the terms of their respective treaties, entered into in 1866, for the express purpose of locating other tribes of friendly Indians thereon. Before the lands of the unassigned district were thrown open to white settlement, therefore, it was very desirable to secure the consent of the Creek and Seminole nations to the proposed opening, in the form of a full, complete and unqualified transfer of title to the United States. The act of March 3, 1885, under the terms of which the President of the United States had been author- ized to appoint a commission to negotiate such an agreement with the Creek and Seminole nations (as well as with the Cherokee Na- tion for the cession of its lands lying west of the 96th meridian), had evidently been formulated and passed in the belief that the people of those tribes had not merely a claim on the lands (which they had ceded under pressure for a special purpose and at a price that was a pittance) but that they also still held an equitable inter- est in the same, at least until such time as they might execute an unqualified relinquishment of their fee simple title thereto.
Negotiations, for the purpose of extinguishinig the claims of the Creek and Seminole nations to ownership of all lands in the Indian Territory west of their diminished reservations as defined by the treaties of 1866, were carried on in Washington City during the last session of the Fiftieth Congress. An agreement was reached with the duly authorized delegates of the Creek Nation, January 19, 1889, whereby the Government was to pay to the Creek Nation the sum of $2,280,857.10, which, added to the sums paid to the Creek Nation under the provisions of the Creek Treaty of 1866 and by Indian tribes which had been subsequently located upon tracts included in the ceded area, would equal a total of $1.25 per acre. Twelve days after the conclusion of this agreement (Janu- ary 31st) it was ratified by act of the Creek Council. President Cleveland laid the matter before Congress in a special message, dated February 5, 1889. It was ratified by act of Congress approved March 1, 1889.
610
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
At the time of the passage and approval of the Indian Appro- priation Bill, in the closing hours of the Fiftieth Congress, no agree- ment had been reached with the Seminole Nation relative to such a final and full relinquishment of its claim to the lands lying west of the Seminole boundary, between the North and South Canadian rivers. However, section 12 of that act provided for the appropria- tion of $1,912,952.02 to pay the Seminole Nation in full for all of its rights, title and interest in such lands, that sum representing the difference between the value of the tract in question at $1.25 per acre and the sums previously paid to the Seminole Nation in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of 1866 and by, or in behalf of, Indian tribes which were subsequently settled thereon.
On March 16 1889, just two weeks after the passage and approval of the Indian Appropriation Act, with its amendment for the opening of the Oklahoma lands for white settlement, the duly authorized delegates of the Seminole Nation entered into an agreement with the Government whereby the desired release and conveyance was executed and the title to the lands in question was formally transferred to the United States This removed the last obstacle to the opening of the lands of the unassigned district to settlement under the homestead laws. One weck later (March 23d) President Benjamin Harrison issued a proclamation, formally announcing and declaring that, at and after the hour of noon, on the 22d day of April following, the lands of the Oklahoma country should be open to settlement, subject to the conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in the act authorizing the same and to the Federal laws applicable thereto. Thus ended the ten-year struggle for the right of settlement in Oklahoma.
CHAPTER LXI
THE CHEROKEE OUTLET
As the agitation for the opening of Oklahoma to settlement was continued and popular interest began to increase, the question of the ownership and use of the Cherokee Outlet, or "Strip," as it was commonly called, constantly assumed greater importance in the discussion of the proposed opening. This was due, of course, to the natural antipathy which existed between the "boomers" on the one hand and the Cherokees, who were the owners of the outlet, and the cattlemen, who were leasing and using its lands for the ranging of their herds, on the other. Every thinking man knew that, if the lands of the unassigned district were opened to settle- ment, it would only be a question of time until the lands of the Cherokee Outlet would likewise have to be opened to settlement. Manifestly, this could not be done without having at least the nom- inal consent of the Cherokee people.
In the beginning, the Cherokees collected (or attempted to col- lect) a head tax on all cattle grazed on the outlet lands. The net amount thus received was ridiculously small, however, though the cattlemen seemed to think the amounts assessed against them were excessive. As neither of the parties to the arrangement were satis- fied, this had led, as already recounted, to the organization of the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association, which, in its corporate capacity, leased the entire tract and then sublet it to the individual ranchmen or cattle companies to whom certain definite ranges were assigned. This obviated the necessity of sending out collectors, as the directors of the leasing association were bound by the terms of their contract to pay in one-half of the annual rental every six months.
Although the Cherokees never derived any benefit, tribal or individual, from their ownership of the "Perpetual Outlet, West," during the first forty years that its title was vested in the Cherokee Nation, and though it had taken most of the proceeds of the head tax on cattle to collect it under the old arrangement, yet the leasing of the entire tract for $100,000 per year was severely criticized on
611
1
612
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
the ground that it was worth much more and the question soon reached a very acute stage in the politics of the Cherokee Nation. . Meanwhile, there were other white men who also thought the lands of the outlet were worth more than $100,000 per year.
In the latter part of 1886, the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Asso- ciation, whichi had already had its business conditions disturbed by the activity of the "boomers" and by the expulsion of the herds from the ranges of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Reservation, was still further disquicted by the discovery that a syndicate had been formed for the purchase of all of the Cherokee lands west of the 96th meridian. That the proposed purchase of the Cherokee Out- let was more than an idle rumor, seems to be conclusively proven by the following extracts from correspondence of the period :
"Vinita, C. N., October 14th, 1886.
"Dear Mr. Thompson :-
"I expected to meet you on your return & very sorry, for I can't express myself as clear by letter & for this reason I want to have you give me a few minutes to read my favor carefully. * *
"I expect to visit Council with a gentleman, who, if he comes, comes to make the Cherokee Nation a bona fide offer of twelve or eighteen million dollars for the entire land west of 96°. He is now making a more thorough inspection than my own report. This offer was intended for last Council but it was intrusted to trifling parties & fell through. The bind money has all been subscribed, as the enclosed letter will explain and, if nothing new comes up and my report of the resources of the "Outlet" is verified, this gentle- man & probably one other will reach this place between now and Council time & I will bring them or send them to Tahlequah. They will make an offer of cash and ask probably an option long enough to have Congress of the U. S. ratify or sustain the Cherokee deed & in case Congress fails, to secure it from the Supreme Court, for every detail of the Cherokee title has been examined and it has been found from the best legal opinion the title to the "Outlet" is perfect within the Cherokees & in case the sale falls through you will see the great advantage of this offer to establish a future value on these lands, & if ever an intelligent Delegation is secured, to get a higher raised valuation on the lands already sold. But at the least, I want your cooperation, & let it be, like my own, to be un- known. The sale, even at $12,000,000.00, at 5% interest, will give many times more value than the lease. I have been working on this scheme carefully since 1882, as also has my partner, Mr. Wal-
613
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
lace. I fear opposition from Hoolie in this asked for option, for the reason that I wish to drop him for the failure last year & for you to quietly break his influence, if he has any. We may decide to ask the Nation for 71/2% of the cash money paid outside of our own sale to other parties. If we decide on this I can imburse you & two or three other influential Cherokees handsomely for aid, etc., outside of the great advantages derived from this offer, from the large amount of wealth paid into the treasury of this country. And, as I said to you, I had a very interesting subject to talk to you of ; now you know it & not even my wife knows scarcely even a word, for all of my correspondence on this subject has been carefully with- held from every one, and 'tis possible this offer by this Syndicate may fall through, but I trust, as the enclosed letter will explain, to be there & have the option asked of this Council.
"Very Truly Your friend, " (signed) FRED. W. STROUT.
"To JOHNSON THOMPSON, "Tahlequah, C. N.
"P. S. I wish you would drop me a line if you look favorable upon both these schemes and if you will help me."
(Enclosure) "Leadville, Colo., "214 W. 7th St., "Oct. 4th, 1886.
"Dear Strout :-
"Your letters received. A representative of the New York syn- dicate is on his way here and, on his arrival, I will accompany him to Vinita.
"Will telegraph you when I start. The money is all subscribed if we can secure the option. Very truly,
"J. W. WALLACE, "Per E. W. W."
The following is a copy of the offer of the New York syndicate, as drawn up and signed by J. W. Wallace and John Bissell : 1
1 The correspondence relative to the proposed purchase of the lands of the Cherokee Outlet is quoted from copies of the original letters, marked as such, contained in the collection of the late C. II. Eldred, a director of the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association.
614
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
"Tahlequah, Nov. 9, 1886.
"To the Hon. D. W. BUSHYHEAD, Prin'l Chief of the Cherokee Nation :-
"We desire, on behalf of the syndicate which we represent, to bring to your attention, & through you to the attention of the Hon. Council now in session, the offer of our syndicate to purchase what is commonly known as the 'Perpetual Outlet West,' being the lands west of 96°. It seems only necessary to suggest that our offer is to buy the lands, whatever their acreage, at $3.00 per acre, the amount generally being determined by the surveys already made. The entire scheme will, in event that your wisdom shall bring the matter to the attention of the Hon. Council, be fully presented to the committee to which it may be referred & fully embodied in the Bill which will be laid before them. In the mean time, should you desire more exact detail, we shall take pleasure in furnishing you with explicit information. We have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servants on behalf of the Syndicate',
"JNO. BISSELL, "J. W. WALLACE."
This proposition was duly submitted to Principal Chief Bushy- head but was not laid before the Cherokee legislative council, pre- sumably for the reason that public sentiment among the Cherokees was overwhelmingly against the sale of the outlet lands. The representatives of the syndicate remained at Tahlequah for several weeks, leaving only when they were convinced that further efforts to secure consideration of their proposition would be futile. At the same time, the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association, which had several representatives present at Tahlequah during the session of the council, was striving to secure a renewal of its five-year lease, which still had nearly two years to run. The title to the lands of the outlet, as claimed by the Cherokees, was apparently complicated by the action of the Cherokees in accepting an appropriation of $300,000 which had been made by an act of Congress approved March 3, 1883, as being "due under appraisement of such lands." The lands of the Cherokee Outlet had been appraised under the direction of the President of the United States at 47.49 cents per acre as a basis of settlement for the lands purchased therefrom for the Osage, Kaw, Pawnee, Ponca, Otoe and Missouri and Nez Perce tribes, for which appropriations had been made and paid to the Cherokee Nation in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of 1866. The influences which were back of this appropriation of
615
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
$300,000, together with the fact that 71/2 per cent of that sum was said to have been paid to the attorney of the Cherokee Nation at Washington (Col. William A. Phillips) caused much bitterness in the protracted campaign which preceded the election of new na- tional officers by the Cherokees, in August, 1887. Then, as if the situation were not already sufficiently muddled, Col. E. C. Boudi- not, who openly questioned the legal right of the Cherokee Nation to lease the lands of the outlet to the cattlemen without having first the authority of an act of Congress, and who also favored the establishment of a territorial government, took the matter of the 71% per cent on the $300,000 congressional appropriation into the Federal Court, where Col. William A. Phillips and several promi- nent Cherokees were indicted for conspiracy. The conservative Downing party was triumphant in the election over the radical national party, electing Joel B. Mayes as principal chief over Rab- bit Bunch by a substantial majority.
After the election and inauguration of the new tribal officers, the question of a new lease came up for consideration in the Chero- kee Council and was the subject of much jockeying and wire pulling. The inauguration did not take place in as orderly a manner as it should, the count of votes having been delayed for some reason unexplained, so the newly elected principal chief forcibly took pos- session of the executive office and was sworn in. He issued a proc- lamation three days later (November 10th) convening the council in special session. Much time was spent on contested elections, organization and patronage. After being in session a number of weeks, the council finally passed a bill to authorize a new lease with the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association for the sum of $125,000 per year as rental on the lands of the outlet. This bill was vetoed by the principal chief. A strong effort was made to pass the bill over the executive veto but it was defeated, though several members of the principal chief's own party (Downing) voted with the oppo- sition. The council adjourned (February 9, 1888) without taking further action in regard to the matter. Chief Mayes then suggested that the proper way to lease the lands of the outlet would be to offer the lease to the highest bidder. This started still further discussion among the people and thus popular interest in the matter was kept up until Chief Mayes issued another proclamation, convening the council in special session on the 25th of June following. A bill was passed within a few days, authorizing and directing the prin- cipal chief to execute a new lease with the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association for the sum of $150,000. Claiming that he had
616
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
two higher bids (one of $160,000 and another of $175,000 per year), Chief Mayes vetoed this bill also. The council then amended its bill, raising the amount to $175,000 per year, but Chief Mayes' other bidders having raised their bids to $185,000 per year, he vetoed that also. Charges of favoritism on the part of the principal chief and of corruption and venality on the part of leading members of the opposition in the council were freely made. The situation finally became so unpleasant (as well as so unpromising) that Chief Mayes availed himself of his constitutional prerogative and ad- journed the council after it had been in session nearly four weeks.
The five-year lease of the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Associa- tion was to expire on the 1st of October, 1888, while the legislative council of the Cherokee Nation was not to convene until five weeks later. In September, Chief Mayes issued a proclamation, addressed to all concerned and more especially to the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association and its sublessees, giving due notice of the expi- ration of the five-year lease and serving notice also that the agents of the Cherokee Nation would on or immediately after the 1st day of October call upon the lessee and its sublessees to surrender the property, together with improvements thereon, in accordance with the terms of the lease made and entered into in 1883. But the officials of the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association were not asleep. Assuming that something must be done to "bridge the hiatus" between the expiration of the lease (October 1st) and the date of the next council meeting (November 5th), E. M. Hewins, director and president of the association, went to Tahlequah and entered into a temporary contract with Robert B. Ross, treasurer of the Cherokee Nation, whereby the association was to retain pos- session of the lands of the outlet until the 1st of January follow- ing, at a rental rate of $175,000 per year, the sum of $43,750 being paid to cover the rental for the three months designated as the term of the contract. Chief Mayes repudiated the Ross contract (which was evidently executed without authority) and issued a supple- mental proclamation (October 9, 1888) demanding immediate rede- livery of the property held under lease. After the council convened in November, the long contest was finally ended by the passage and approval of a bill providing for the renewing the lease of the lands of the outlet to the Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association for five years at an annual rental of $200,000. The New York syndicate had a representative on the ground at Tahle- quah to renew its offer, made two years before, namely, to purchase the entire tract at a price of $3 per acre, but, as before, the offer did
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.