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 28
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
Other measures bearing on the statehood question were also introduced. Senator Fairbanks reintroduced his single statehood bill (S. 186) in the upper house, and Representative Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, introduced a similar bill (H. R. 4569) in the lower house. Representative Moon, of Tennessee, still true to his hobby, also reintroduced his bill (H. R. 279) to organize the Indian Territory as the Territory of Jefferson. When Congress reconvened after the Christmas recess, two more statehood bills were introduced-one in the Senate (S. 3368) by Senator Thomas M. Patterson, of Colorado, and one in the House (H. R. 9675) by Representative John H. Stephens, of Texas. Each of these two measures proposed joint statehood for Oklahoma and the Indian Territory.
Up to this time, Delegate Flynn. evidently favored the union of the two territories in the organization of one state-his Quapaw County bill is sufficient proof of that. But the persistent and obstinate opposition of the Indian Territory lobbyists finally seemed to convince him of the futility of any further effort to secure the passage of a bill for single statehood, either during that session or at any other time in the near future. So he abandoned further efforts in that line, ceased to manifest further interest in Indian Territory affairs and devoted himself whole-heartedly to an en- deavor to secure immediate statehood for the people of Oklahoma Territory. His first move in this direction was the introduction of another statehood bill (H. R. 11,802), February 25, 1902. Less
743
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
than three weeks later (March 14, 1902), Representative William S. Knox, for the House Committee on Territories, introduced an omnibus statehood bill to enable the people of Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma, to adopt constitutions, organize state governments and apply for admission into the Union. In this bill, Oklahoma was considered alone and regardless of any possible future connec- tion with the Indian Territory, except that Congress reserved the right to annex it to Oklahoma later. It was this Omnibus Statehood Bill that first brought the issue of double or single statehood for the Indian Territory and Oklahoma before Congress for considera- tion, where it was destined to hold a prominent place until it was finally settled, over four years later.
THE OMNIBUS STATEHOOD BILL
The Omnibus Statehood Bill was called up for consideration in the House of Representatives, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, May 7, 1902. Representative Knox led in the opening speech in support of the bill and also . directed the affirmative debate.1 The leader of the debate on behalf of the minority party was none other than Representative Moon, of Tennessee, the proponent of the Jefferson Territory move- ment. Following Mr. Knox, Representative McRae, who first gave notice that at the proper time he would offer a substitute, the pur- port of which was to include Oklahoma and the Indian Territory as one State.2 In the course of his speech, Mr. McRae asked that the clerk read the following resolutions which had been adopted at a meeting of the Oklahoma City Commercial Club, February 4, 1902, which may be regarded as a succinct statement of the single statehood side of the question :
"SINGLE STATEHOOD RESOLUTIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA CITY COMMERCIAL CLUB.
"To the Oklahoma City Commercial Club:
"Your committee on State and national legislation beg leave to submit the following resolution :
"Be it resolved, That we regard the question of statehood as of overwhelming importance to the people of Oklahoma and Indian
1 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, pp. 5136-5140.
2 Ibid., pp. 5140-5146.
744
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
Territory ; not only to those now living, but all unborn generations. Whether statehood shall come this year or the next, we regard as of infinitesimal importance when compared with the question whether we shall have one or two States. We favor the creation of only one State out of both Territories for the following reasons :
"First. When combined as one State its area as compared with the other Western States would be small. The area in square miles of the States and Territories west of the Mississippi are as follows :
"Oklahoma, 39,000; Indian Territory, 31,400; the aggregate area, 70,400.
Minnesota
83,365
Arkansas
53,850
Missouri
69,415
Iowa
56,025
North Dakota, about
75,000
South Dakota, about
75,000
Nebraska
77,510
Kansas
82,080
Texas
265,780
New Mexico
122,580
Arizona
113,020
Colorado
103,925
Utah
84,970
Idaho
84,800
Montana
146,080
Washington
69,180
Oregon
96,030
California
61,562
"It will thus be seen that of the eighteen States named, fourteen have a larger area than that of the two Territories combined : Missouri and Washington about the same, and Arkansas and Iowa a few square miles less, so that the two Territories combined have an area of 25,171 square miles less than the average of the Western States. Oklahoma alone has an area of 56,571 square miles less than the average; the Indian Territory has an area 64,171 square miles less than the average. If combined, the two Territories will only make a fair-sized State. If divided, they will both be pigmies. "Second. To impose upon this small area the burden of support- ing two separate and distinct State governments would render taxa- tion oppressive. As one State the cost of maintaining the State
745
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
government and institutions would be very little more than the cost of maintaining each of the separate State governments.
"Third. In our judgment it is the desire of not less than 90 per cent of the taxpayers that we should have single statehood.
"Fourth. The geographical situation is such as to make nature herself an eloquent spokesman in favor of single statehood. This entire area was originally embraced within the boundaries of the Indian Territory. Oklahoma has been carved piecemeal out of the Indian Territory. Upon the map she now has the appearance of sitting in the lap of the Indian Territory. The two are wedged together; they have the same railroad systems; they have a homo- geneous population. The mere geography of the country argues for single statehood.
"Fifth. The resources of the two territories cry aloud for union. Oklahoma is almost wholly agricultural. The great wealth of the Indian Territory is in her mines and forests. With the product of the farm, the forest, and the mine allied in a common cause of building up one State, immediate success and immense achievements are sure to follow.
"Sixth. It has always been the contemplation of Congress that this entire area should be one State. Section 1 of the organic act, being the act of May 2, 1890, after describing by crooked and devious lines the boundaries of Oklahoma, contains the following provisions :
"'Any other lands within the Indian Territory not embraced within these boundaries shall hereafter become a part of the Terri- tory of Oklahoma whenever the Indian nation or tribe owning said lands shall signify to the President of the United States, in legal manner, its assent that such lands shall so become a part of said Territory of Oklahoma, and the President shall thereupon make proclamation to that effect.'
"Seventh. We favor single statehood because we believe that with the natural resources of the two Territories combined we can erect a commonwealth which will be a pride to the Union, a source of gratification and of prosperity to ourselves, and a rich heritage to our posterity.
"Be it further resolved, That it is our desire that Congress, in legislating upon this subject, should be fair toward the people of the Indian Territory. We think they are entitled to a voice in the location of all public institutions, in the formation and adoption of our organic law, and in the initial steps leading up to the union.
"We do most earnestly, persistently, and respectfully petition Vol. II-20
746
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
Congress to heed the wishes of the people of the two Territories on this question; to legislate not for the present but for the vast and unlimited future; to ignore party lines.
"We do most strenuously protest against being made the toys of politicians or the tool of any political party. We say it is not a question of politics, but a question of business, of taxation, of the future. We are absolutely indifferent to the possible political complexion of the single State, but regardless of political con- siderations, we wish that legislation which will best subserve the cause of the people of these two Territories.
"Be it further resolved, That the secretary of this club have 500 copies of these resolutions printed, and that from that number he shall furnish a copy to each member of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.
"Respectfully submitted.
"C. B. AMES, Chairman; R. E. CAMPBELL, and FRANK WELLS, Committee on State and National Legislation."
The debate was continued on the two succeeding days, during the course of which, the bill was considered in detail and a number of minor amendments were made. Delegate Flynn made a logical argument in support of the bill, devoting himself to the fitness and qualifications of the Territory of Oklahoma for statehood and mak- ing no reference to the Indian Territory whatever, though he did do so in the course of a running debate with Mr. McRae.3 The substitute amendment offered by the latter was as follows:4
"That the inhabitants of all that part of the United States now constituting the Territory of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, namely, that section of country bounded on the north by the States of Colorado and Kansas, on the east by the States of Arkansas and Missouri, on the south by the State of Texas, and on the west by the State of Texas and the Territory of New Mexico, may become the State of Oklahoma, as hereinafter provided : Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to impair any right now pertaining to any Indian tribe or tribes in said Territory under the laws, agreements, or treaties of the United States, or to affect the authority of the Government of the United States to
3 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, page 5187.
4 Ibid., p. 5189.
747
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
make any regulations or to make any law respecting said Indians or their lands which it would have been competent to make or enact if this act had not been passed and the constitutional con- vention hereinafter provided for shall by ordinance irrevocably express the consent of the State of Oklahoma that Congress shall retain complete jurisdiction over all lands that belong to any Indian tribes until the same has been allotted in severalty and becomes subject to taxation."
In speaking briefly in support of his amendment, Mr. McRae, who had just been accused of seeking to impede the consideration of the bill, said :3
"I want to facilitate the consideration of this bill as much as possible, and as I have already spoken in the general debate I have very little to add, except that I want to call the attention of members of the House to the map before us, so as to show the relation of these two Territories, one to the other, and thus get a clearer idea of what is involved in my proposition.
"You will find the Indian Territory indicated in red on the cast. It is only a little less in area than Oklahoma. It has a few thousand population less, according to the census of 1900, and according to the census it has a denser population than Oklahoma. The Indan Territory has twelve people to the square mile, while Oklahoma has only ten. They are of the same character of people and have a common history. They ought to be in the same State for the good of both.
"I submit to the House and to the country that it is unjust to the people of the Indian Territory to provide for the admission of all of the rest of our Territories between the two oceans and leave this one in this uncertain and undesirable attitude. These people deserve a better fate.
"If we are to pass the bill to admit three Territories, then we should cover all of them by taking in the Indian Territory.
"I do not undertake to speak for the politics of either of these Territories. There has been no election to indicate what the politics of the Indian Territory are, but they are supposed to be Demo- cratic, but if we take the record as to Oklahoma it is Republican. I make no objection on that account, for whether they be Demo- cratic or Republican, it is their right and their privilege to have admission, and then at their own pleasure select their affiliations.
"I appeal to Republicans and Democrats alike to consider the
3 Ibid., p. 5196.
748
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
condition of those people. They are equally as worthy as the people of Oklahoma. I am willing for Oklahoma to take her own governor, her secretary, and the Dawes Commission and hold this election, and hold the convention in the capital of Oklahoma, giving her any advantage that she can get out of that, but I want the Indian Territory attached now or never. Any other course would be unjust to her. With 800,000 inhabitants the two will have four Repre- sentatives on this floor, and they will be worthy of her neighbors, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Arkansas.
"But, my friends, if you leave them as separate States you will find them both lacking revenue, lacking in many things necessary to make a great State. Lacking in the money necessary to educate their children, and if they are to become a great people and prosper they must do that. I believe if you will make this State you will make these people glad and do a patriotic duty to all the people of the Union." (Loud applause.)
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 57 to 103, after having been ruled in order by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, Representative J. A. Hemenway, of Indiana, The bill as amended was finally reported favorably out of the Committee to the House, by which it was immediately passed, May 9, 1902.
After passing the House the bill went to the Senate, where it was referred to the Committee on Territories. This committee was not disposed to act hastily in passing upon the Omnibus Statehood Bill, at least not nearly so hastily as was desired in some quarters. The chief sponsor for the Omnibus Statehood Bill in the Senate was Matthew S. Quay, then the senior senator from the State of Pennsylvania. Senator Quay became very impatient with what he regarded as the dilatoriness of the Committee on Territories, though he had no scruples against delaying consideration of legis- lation which was objectionable to him. It may be stated also that he had no particular interest in that part of the bill relating to Oklahoma and probably would not have objected to a single statehood program if it had been embodied in the bill as it came from the House. His whole interest in the measure was understood to be centered in those sections which related to New Mexico. He was understood to have personal reasons for desiring the immediate admission of New Mexico. The bill was referred to the com- mittee May 12th. Five weeks later (June 17th), Senator Quay gave notice that in two days he would move to discharge the com- mittee from further consideration, of the bill, which he did at
749
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
the time indicated. He also made a speech in which many prece- dents were cited to justify the adoption of such a motion.6 He sought for several days thereafter to secure unanimous consent for the consideration of his motion but failed and finally withdrew the motion upon the understanding that the bill should be reported early in the next session.
VISIT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES
During the latter part of the summer, in Oklahoma, when interest in public matters is more or less dormant, there was some quiet counseling among the active leaders of the single statehood propaganda who were naturally anxious over the prospect. The Senate Committee on Territories was invited to visit the territory through the medium of a letter sent to its chairman, Senator Albert J. Beveridge, of Indiana. A special invitation was sent to Senator Quay, who was a member of the committee. Presumably there were a number of similar invitations sent to the committee, not only from Oklahoma but also from Arizona and New Mexico. Along in the autumn it was reported that the Senate Committee on Territories was planning to visit all of the territories. It was hoped that they would visit Oklahoma first. When the committee started west it was announced that the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico were to be visited first. No answers were made to tele- grams sent to the committee from Oklahoma after the committee left Topeka on its way to the other territories.
The Committee on Territories, traveling on a special train on the Panhandle Division of the Santa Fe Railway, entered Oklahoma unannounced, on the afternoon of Saturday, November 22, 1902. Brief stops were made at Woodward and Alva, whence telegrams were sent to Guthrie, Oklahoma City and possibly other points. The telegram addressed to the Oklahoma City Commercial Club was very brief, merely announcing that the Senate Committee on Territories would arrive in Oklahoma City at 4 P. M. the next day (Sunday). This intelligence was immediately transmitted from Oklahoma City to the friends and leaders of the single statehood movement in many towns in both Oklahoma and Indian territories, with invitation to send delegations to meet the members of the committee. But, in this, Oklahoma City almost reckoned
6 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, pp. 7197-7201.
750 .
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
without its host because of a change in the program which the members of the committee were induced to make after arriving in ยท Guthrie.
The committee's special train arrived at Guthrie about mid- night and expected to remain there until time to start to Oklahoma City the next afternoon. The members of the committee were met and persuaded that it would be best to hold but one hearing for both territories and that at Guthrie. In order to let them see something of the country in the two territories, it was also proposed that their train should proceed to Oklahoma City early the following morning, make a brief stop there and thence go east on the Rock Island to Shawnee and McAlester; thence north on the Missouri, Kansas & Texas to Muskogee and Wagoner; thence over the Iron Mountain to Claremore; thence back to Oklahoma City on the St. Louis & San Francisco and return to Guthrie Monday morning. When the Senatorial Committee arrived in Okla- homa City at an early hour Sunday morning, practically unher- alded, save for the brief announcement in the morning papers, there was dismay among the advocates of single statehood. They had not been outgeneraled-they had just been "scooped," with no chance to present their side of the case, and they were dumb- founded when Senator Beveridge assured them that it had all been arranged and agreed that there should be but one general hearing for the people of both territories and that it should be held at Guthrie. The heavy clouds whence fell intermittent showers during the day, could scarcely add to the gloom which prevailed in Oklahoma City as the Senate Committee's special train departed for Shawnee. But, even as every cloud is said to have a silver lining, so there were a few sparks of optimism unex- tinguished in the group which gathered for consultation at the Lee Hotel shortly afterward. The one question uppermost in every mind was that of finding some plan by means of which the Sena- torial Committee could be induced to change its plan and hold part of its hearings in Oklahoma City on the following day. Various expedients were suggested and rejected. Finally, one man present said he believed he could write a telegram that would keep the senators in Oklahoma City part of the day. "Let us see it," was the instant response from several quarters. When the tele- gram was written, it read thus:
751
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
"OKLAHOMA CITY, Nov. 23, 1902. "HON. A. J. BEVERIDGE, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Territories,
South Me Alester, Ind. Ter.,
"Sir :- South MeAlester, Muskogee, Vinita, Claremore, Tulsa, Sapulpa, Chandler, Wewoka, Holdenville, Shawnee, Tecumseh, Nor- man, Lexington, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Wynnewood, Davis, Ard- more, Chickasha, Lawton, Mangum, Hobart, Anadarko and Okla- homa City delegations respectfully but insistently urge that they be accorded a hearing in Oklahoma City tomorrow.
(Signed)
It should be stated that there were not actually that many delegations in sight at the time but it was hoped that there might be within a few hours. Late that night a telegram came from Senator Beveridge saying, "Will endeavor to hold brief hearing in Oklahoma City, tomorrow, though nothing is certain." Early the next morning a second message came from him saying: "Arrive in Oklahoma City at 9 A. M., leave for Guthrie at 11 A. M." And so there was a hearing held in Oklahoma City. The members of the committee agreed to take the testimony of the mayor and president of the commercial organization and two wholesale mer- chants of Oklahoma City and of one spokesman from each of the visiting delegations. (Fortunately for the committee, there were fewer delegations present than might have been expected from the statement contained in the foregoing telegram.) It was nearly noon when the hearing was completed and it was half an hour after noon before their special train got under way for Guthrie. The stay of the committe at Guthrie was even more brief than the one at Oklahoma City, as the special train departed from the terri- torial capital at 3:30 o'clock.
THE OMNIBUS STATEHOOD BILL IN THE SENATE
Congress reconvened just a week after the committee's hearings at Guthrie and Oklahoma City. The Senate Committee reported a substitute bill for House Bill No. 12,543, two days later. The sub- stitute bill, which was introduced by Senator Knute Nelson, of Minnesota, proposed to strike out all after the enacting clause and substitute therefor the provisions necessary to enable the people of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory to form and adopt a con- stitution and be admitted as one state. And then the battle was on, for the supporters of the original measure were in no very
752
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
amiable frame of mind. The report of the Committee on Terri- tories had not yet been submitted, though it was understood to be in the process of preparation. It was also understood that the minority was preparing a report. But both majority and minority were too slow to suit Senator Quay who, alluding to himself as "a sort of political orphan upon that committee," submitted a report of his own.7 (It should be stated that neither the minority members nor Senator Quay accompanied the committee on its tour of inspection and investigation in the territories.) The actual facts were that Senator Quay had enough pledged votes, or other- wise certain support, to warrant him in the belief that the Omnibus Statehood Bill could be passed as it came from the House if it could be brought to a vote. As already stated, he was reputed to have personal reasons back of his urgent insistence upon an immediate passage of this measure. It was currently reported and generally believed that he was involved in some financial trans- actions in New Mexico in which his interests would have been greatly enhanced by the passage of the measure in question. By a shrewd parliamentary maneuver he had succeeded in having it made an item of unfinished business to be taken up soon after the beginning of the second session of Congress, thus giving it an advanced position on the Senate calendar. And then, confident of the support that the measure would command, he announced that he was ready for a vote upon the same, without debate. But the opposition, led by Senator Beveridge and the majority (repub- lican) members of the Committee on Territories, were equally deter- mined that the bill should not come to a vote-at least, not without having been first debated and, in this stand, they were favored by the rules of the Senate. The parliamentary struggle which fol- lowed the attempt to force the passage of this bill has seldom been exceeded in intensity in the history of the United States Senate.
Day after day, Senator Quay called for the ""'regular order," which was the consideration of the Omnibus Statehood Bill as unfinished business. Always he was on the alert and almost vin- dictively insistent upon an early vote on the passage of the bill as it had come from the House. In this he was ably seconded by Senator Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire, and Senator William B. Bate, of Tennessee, the latter being the ranking minority
7 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 180-185.
753
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
member of the Committee on Territories. On the 10th of Decem- ber, Senator Quay sent to the secretary's desk, to be read, no less than ninety-eight telegrams from Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, urging the passage of the Omnibus Statehood Bill as it passed the House of Representatives. Of these, eighteen were dated at Guthrie, fifty-seven at El Reno, and eleven at Holdenville, and the rest from various other places.8 Among these telegrams was the following:
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.