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 29
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
"GUTHRIE, OKLAHOMA, December 10, 1902.
"SENATOR MATTHEW S. QUAY, Washington, D. C .:
"The Beveridge Bill would make a hopelessly Democratic State -locates Federal Court at leading Democratic towns and takes it away from leading Republican towns."
Before the reading of this telegram could be completed, how- ever, Senator Quay (who saw its effect the possible alienation of Democratic support for the Omnibus Statehood Bill) was on his feet to interrupt the reading, merely remarking, "That telegram got in by mistake, Mr. President," which explanation was greeted by laughter.
The report of the Senate Committee on Territories (Senate Report No. 2206, Fifty-seventh Congress, First Session) was pre- sented December 10.9 It openly questioned the wisdom of admit- ting Arizona and New Mexico into the Union as states at that time, presenting voluminous reasons in support of the stand thus taken. On the other hand, it presented a strong argument for the admis- sion of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory as one state. While there can be no doubt that the majority members of the committee were sincere in their desire to grant the boon of statehood to Okla- homa and the Indian Territory, there was no doubt a temptation to use the single statehood substitute as a club for the destruction of the well laid plans for the admission of the other two territories. The minority report of the Committee on Territories was signed by Senators William B. Bate, Henry Heitfeld, Joseph W. Bailey and Thomas M. Patterson.10 Senators Bate and Bailey were from the South and favored ultimate admission of Oklahoma and Indian Territory as separate states for the purely partisan reason that it would add to the strength of ther own party in the Upper House
8 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 175-178.
9 Ibid., pp. 187-194.
10 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 297-299.
754
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
of Congress. Senator Patterson, on the other hand, believed that Oklahoma and the Indian Territory should be joined in the forma- tion of one state-in fact, he had introduced a bill for that purpose -but, representing a Rocky Mountain State, as he did, he could not bring himself to oppose the admission of Arizona and New Mexico. Senator Heitfeld, too, was from a Rocky Mountain State (Idaho) and, moreover, a partisan republican who was ever ready to follow the leadership of such a man as Senator Quay; indeed, the only wonder was that he did not sign the Quay report instead of the minority report. Unlike the Quay report, the minority report did discuss the possibility of joint statehood for Oklahoma and the Indian territory, though it must be admitted that such discussion was couched in terms of sarcastic hostility.
Two days after Congress convened, an enthusiastic single state- hood convention was held at Claremore (December 3, 1902). Strong resolutions were adopted, protesting against the passage of the Omnibus Statehood Bill11 and a delegation of leading citizens of both territories was sent post haste to Washington to do all that was possible to defeat that measure and to seek to secure the passage of a single statehood bill instead.
When the substitute for the Omnibus Statehood Bill was intro- duced, Senator Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, immediately intro- duced an amendment to it, proposing to strike out "Oklahoma" and insert "Jefferson" in lieu thereof.12
The pressure of other business caused a lull in activity on the statehood measure as the holiday season drew near. However, it did not alter the determination of Senator Quay and his associates to push it to a final vote and there was evidence of renewed zeal when Congress reconvened after the Christmas recess. On the 7th of January, Senator Quay sent to the secretary's desk nineteen telegrams, each of which urged the passage of the Omnibus State- hood Bill.13 Of these, eleven were from Holdenville, one was from Guthrie and the rest were from citizens of New Mexico-mostly from Carlsbad. On the day before (January 6, 1903), a conven- tion in the interest of single statehood was held at Oklahoma City. In its attendance and enthusiasm it far exceeded any gathering that had ever been brought together as a convention for any purpose
11 Ibid., pp. 45, 46.
12 Ibid., pp. 186, 187.
13 Congressional Record, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 554, 555.
755
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
up to that time. Indeed, there was not at that time a single audi- torium in Oklahoma large enough to give even standing room for all the delegates. Once more a declaration was prepared for pre- sentation to the Senate of the United States, protesting against the passage of the Omnibus Statehood Bill and urging single statehood for the Indian and Oklahoma Territories.14 Another delegation was selected to visit Washington for the purpose of personally pleading with the senators in behalf of the substitute bill. The text of the declaration adopted was as follows :
"OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., January 6, 1903.
"SENATOR ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE,
"United States Senate, Washington, D. C .:
"At a nonpartisan interterritorial statehood convention held in this city today, participated in by 2,000 delegates, representing practically every incorporated town and many hamlets in the Indian Territory and 20 of the 26 counties of Oklahoma, the fol- lowing resolutions were unanimously adopted :
"We the people of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, as- sembled in delegate convention for the purpose of giving organized expression to our desire for statehood, again declare to the Congress that we favor the creation of one state out of the area now embraced within both these territories, and we most emphatically indorse the simple statehood provisions of the Senate Bill known as the Nelson Bill. This bill is in conformity to the views we expressed in our single statehood convention held at South McAlester in December, 1900, and the convention held at ·Muskogee in November, 1901, and the convention held at Claremore in December, 1902. All those conventions, as well as this one, were and are representative of the business interests of both territories, and were and are the organized expression of the desire of the people of both territories for imme- diate single statehood upon terms of justice and equality to the people of both territories. We indorse the platforms adopted by those earlier conventions, and we now quote with our approval the following extract from the resolutions adopted by the Claremore convention :
"'We, the people of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, in convention assembled, confident that organic union is our manifest destiny, again proclaim to the Congress that we favor the creation of a single state out of the area now embraced within both these
14 Ibid., p. 565.
756
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
territories, and we offer the following reasons in support of our position :
" 'First, Oklahoma's area is 39,000 square miles; that of the Indian Territory only 31,000 square miles. The average area of the states and territories west of the Mississippi is more than 100,000 square miles, while that of Texas, our next-door neighbor, is 265,000. Our combined area will make a state less than 70 per cent of the size of the average Western state, while taken sepa- rately we will be the two Rhode Islands of the West.
" 'Second. The resources of the two territories complement each other. Oklahoma is almost wholly agricultural, while the Indian Territory is richly endowed with mineral wealth, and the combi- nation will make a state unsurpassed in variety and abundance of natural resources.
" 'Third. Single statehood insures larger taxable values and consequently lower taxation.
" '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 fellow- ship already established by inter-territorial organizations of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Catholic Church, the Federation of Women's Clubs, and the Masonic and other fraternities.
" 'Sixth. Single statehood confirms and cements a business fellowship already established by inter-territorial organizations of the cotton-seed oil manufacturers, the lumber dealers, the ice manu- facturers, the grain dealers, the flour manufacturers, and other business organizations.
" 'Seventh. Single statehood, finally, insures a state which will quickly take high rank in this Union, and which we can bequeath to our posterity with pride and satisfaction.'
"We are opposed to the passage of either the Omnibus or the Moon bill, because their enactment into law means either double statehood or single statehood long deferred, and accomplished, if at all, by the attachment process. We oppose the attachment process because it is not necessary for the territories, being ready for imme- diate statehood; because it is unfair to the Indian territory to deprive its people of all participation in the constitutional conven- tion and the framing of the laws and from a voice in the location of our public institutions. We oppose the attachment process for the further reason that its effect will tend to create a sectional
757
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
line of cleavage in the state which might not be obliterated for generations.
"We think we are entitled to immediate statehood-
"First. Because it is a right guaranteed us by the treaty with France at the time of the Louisiana purchase.
"Second. Because it is a right that Congress ought not to deny to a million free and intelligent citizens.
"Third. Because both territories are ready for statehood.
"Fourth. Because Congress has the legal right to grant state- hood not only to Oklahoma but also to the Indian Territory. (Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264.)
"Fifth. Because both territories have the necessary population, each having about 500,000, 90 per cent of whom are American citizens.
"Sixth. Because both territories have the soil, resources, and climate to sustain this population and insure large and steady increase.
"Seventh. Because both have sufficient taxable property to support a state government without excessive taxation.
"Eighth. Because the work of the Dawes Commission has been so nearly completed as to no longer interfere with immediate state- hood. That commission has concluded treaties with all of the Indian tribes, providing for the allotment in severalty of their lands, and authorizing the sale of all except the homestead. These allotments will probably be completed by the time a state govern- ment 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. The mineral and asphalt lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations are to be sold by the Secretary of the Interior, and as soon as sold will of course be taxable. It therefore is beyond controversy that the work of the Dawes Commission no longer interferes with statehood, and that there is abundance of taxable property.
"Ninthi. Congress can reserve such power over Indian affairs as it desires, and statehood will in no way interfere with the free action of the Interior Department in carrying out all the treaties between the Government and the several tribes. In this opinion we are supported by a recent holding of Judge Hosea Townsend, of the southern district of the Indian Territory.
"We urge upon the attention of Congress the fact that it is
758
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
not a question as to whether these two territories shall be united, but whether they shall be divided. Thousands upon thousands of our citizens have moved into both territories, relying upon past legislation and the future wisdom of Congress as insuring no divi- sion of those two territories upon the arrival of ultimate statehood.
"Section 1 of the act of May 2, 1890, 26 Statutes at Large, 81, known as the organic act, creating Oklahoma Territory, contains the following provision :
"'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 such 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.'
"Oklahoma as it exists today is the aggregate of various pur- chases from the several Indian tribes which have been opened to settlement at intervals, running from the 22d day of April, 1889, to the 1st day of August, 1901, and in view of the legislation quoted and the history of the organization of Oklahoma, it has been our well grounded belief that the Congress would never divide the people of these two Territories or undertake to create two States within their borders. We now feel that the passage of the Nelson bill is but a fulfillment of the original promise arising out of the history of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, and that it is but a simple act of justice to the 1,000,000 citizens now living within our borders.
"The creation of two States out of our Territory and the passage of the omnibus bill with the subsequent attachment to Oklahoma of the Indian Territory are two calamities viewed with equal abhor- rence by the fairminded non-partisan business interests of both Territories. To pass the omnibus bill, thus giving to one-half of our common territory the right to frame the organic law and organize the State government and locate all public institutions, and then to attach the other half of our common territory with equal population, equal taxable wealth, and equal resources, is an act of such gross and palpable injustice to that half of the people so to be attached that we can not believe the statesmanship of the United States Senate will ever consent to its perpetration.
"We declare to the Congress that this question of statehood is one affecting our future destiny as a part of the great American Union, and we appeal to the members of that body and to the
759
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
President of the United States to consider the case upon its merits, and disengage it from all entangling alliances, so that justice may be administered to a million people whose future wealth and stand- ing as an American Commonwealth is of infinitely more importance than temporary party advantage or any unwise sectional gain re- sulting from an increased number of United States Senators.
"Finally, we affirm as our deliberate and final declaration, that so far as the interests of Oklahoma and the Indian Territory are affected by the omnibus bill, we are unalterably opposed to its pro- visions, and we prefer absolutely no statehood legislation to the passage of that bill.
"By act of Congress passed more than two years ago all the Indians in the Indian Territory are made citizens of the United States, and thus their competency for the burdens and duties of statehood, in common with the other inhabitants in that Territory, has been settled.
"We express our entire confidence in the good faith of Senators Beveridge, Nelson, and others in their efforts to secure statehood for the two Territories, on terms of absolute equality, at the earliest possible moment, and denounce as a subterfuge the charge that their efforts in urging single statehood is to prevent all statehood legislation in the present Congress."
JESSE J. DUNN, Secretary, GIDEON MORGAN, Chairman.
BUCKING THE DOUBLE STATEHOOD LINE AT HOME
Among the members of the delegation who started to Washing- ton, immediately after the adjournment of the convention at Okla- homa City, was Mr. Charles B. Ames, a prominent attorney of Oklahoma City. During the course of his sojourn in Washington, Mr. Ames, (who was himself a democrat and a native of Mississippi) personally interviewed every senator from the Southern states in an endeavor to win some of them to the support of the single statehood plan for the Indian and Oklahoma territories. Without exception he found them unalterably determined to support Senator Quay in his effort to force the passage of the Omnibus Statehood Bill. Almost without exception the reason assigned was that, with two states instead of one, the South would be more nearly on a parity with the North in the United States Senate; against this sectional political advantage all argument on behalf of the people of the two territories (who would thus ultimately be burdened with
760
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
the support of two state governments instead of one) seemed futile. Yet Mr. Ames felt that conditions were such as to make it necessary to break such an alignment. Therefore, unwilling to give it up, he sent the following telegram :
"WASHINGTON, D. C., January 16, 1903.
"J. B. Thoburn, Secretary,
"Chamber of Commerce, "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
"Have partisan telegrams concentrated on Senator Tillman; the more partisan the better.
"(Signed) C. B. AMES."
This telegram was delivered about noon the next day, which was Sunday. The secretary of the Oklahoma City Chamber of Com- merce was not a partisan, so the situation obviously indicated that there should be called to his assistance some one who was. · For- tunately, he found that William L. Alexander, of Hobart, who had been secretary of the Territorial Democratic Campaign Committee, was in the city.15 The latter was soon located and came in answer to an appeal for help. Suitable telegraphic messages were sent to other members of the Territorial Democratic Committee after which, as the result of collaboration between the secretary and Mr. Alex- ander, the following telegram was sent to the senator from South Carolina :
"OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., January 17, 1903.
"Hon. Benjamin R. Tillman,
"U. S. Senate, Washington, D. C.
"Sir: For God's sake vote against the Omnibus Statehood Bill. Its intent is piecemeal absorption of the Indian Territory, after systematic negro colonization.
" (Signed) W. L. ALEXANDER, Secretary, "Territorial Democratic Committee."
On Friday following, during the course of the continued debate on the Omnibus Statehood Bill, Senator Tillman, who had evidently been doing some serious thinking over the matter, made the follow- ing remarks on the floor of the Senate : 16
15 William L. Alexander is the present state treasurer of Okla- homa.
16 Congressional Record. Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, pp. 1121, 1122.
761
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
"Mr. President, in view of the fact that claims are being put forth here and assertions made as to the status and intentions of Senators, based on a vote that was had a couple of days ago, I think it is proper that I should make known, as one of the Senators who voted to continue the consideration of this bill, what my attitude is in regard to it.
"I want to vote for the bill, but I do not want to vote for it in the form in which it now is; and I wish to explain briefly, if the Senator from Indiana will indulge me, just how I feel about it.
" (Mr. Beveridge. I will.)
"The question has been asked here as to why there was such a necessity for urgency, why the bill was being pressed and why everything else was shoved aside to give this bill the right of way. I am one of those old fogies who believe that a platform adopted by a political party in national conclave should mean what it says and say what it means.
"Both parties as represented in this Chamber in their national platforms have announced themselves in favor of statehood for these Territories. Therefore if there was any faith to be put in their claims or the statement of policies upon which they went to the country, or if those platforms were made to get into office and then to be disavowed or trampled under foot, I for one, as a Democrat, protest that the Democratic party can not afford to occupy that attitude, and the Republicans are entitled to all the credit and honor, if they choose to assume it, that may come from such an attitude.
"The situation, as I understand it, is simply this: There are in the Territory formerly called the Indian Territory-Oklahoma and the Indian Territory as they now are-something like eight or nine hundred thousand or a million white people who went into these Territories from the States to settle up and to create a new Common- wealth. These people are our brethren. They are our fellow- citizens. They have some rights which both the Republican party and the Democratic party ought to respect. Their condition now is deplorable.
"I happened to go down into that region the year before last, and I know something from personal observation of the situa- tion. The people in Oklahoma are much better situated that the people in the Indian Territory-I mean the white people-for the reason that in Oklahoma there is some provision for free schools and for the machinery of government such as the States enjoy, whereas in the Indian Territory everything is tied up and hampered Vol. II-21
762
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
by the condition of the ownership of land by the Indians. The four or five hundred thousand white people there, are, you might say, a sort of Ishmaelites. They are on Indian lands and can not get title. They are all clamorous for statehood in some form. The people in Oklahoma want statehood and the people in the Indian Territory certainly want statehood, either separately from Okla- homa or conjointly with it. If they can not obtain statehood then they want Territorial government the same as any other Territory.
"There is a provision here in the statehood bill as it has been reported, as it passed the House of Representatives, and which, as it is claimed, has a majority of this Senate behind it, that to my mind is simply damnable in its cruelty and injustice. I will read it. After providing for the calling of a constitutional con- vention for the framing of the organic law, the apportionment of delegates, and all that kind of thing necessary for the birth of a new State, this omnibus statehood bill goes on, at the bottom of page 4, line 21, with a proviso to this effect :
" 'Provided, That the constitutional convention provided for herein-
"Speaking of Oklahoma-
" 'shall, by ordinance irrevocable, express the consent of the State of Oklahoma that Congress may at any time, or from time to time, attach all or any part of the Indian Territory to the State of Oklahoma after the title to said lands in said Indian Territory is extinguished in the tribes now claiming the same, and the same assigned in severalty and subject to taxation.'
"What does that proviso mean? It means that Oklahoma is to be created into a State with all the rights of statehood condi- tioned upon her accepting hereafter, in whole or in part, other lands now in the Indian Territory, and the population thereof. In other words, the provision of this bill puts it in the power of the politicians in this Chamber to take the arid or semiarid, the dry end of the former Indian Territory, great as are its resources and great as its capacity for maintaining a dense population, and create a State out of it; and ignore the claims and rights of the white men in the other end of the former Indian Territory or the present Indian Territory. That is the wet end, the rainy end, with land which is as rich in natural fertility as any land on this continent, and in some respects richer, not in fertility, but blessed in its climate, because I have seen land in both Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, and very large acres of it which, without fertilizers, will produce a bale of cotton to the acre, 20 bushels of wheat, 40 bushels
763
HISTORY OF OKLAHOMA
of oats, 40 bushels of corn, and from two to three tons of alfalfa hay. Such a condition and climatic advantages do not exist any- where else in this country of ours or in any part of the known world that I know of.
"It is proposed, however, to create a State out of the poor and arid end, speaking relatively; then to ignore the rights of white people in the other end, parcel them out by piecemeal, and allow them to be 'benevolently assimilated' as the political exigencies and opportunities may come around for a party to gain advantage at the expense of those citizens.
"Consider for a moment this scheme of political brigandage and infamy. Are the white men of the Indian Territory of a different breed; are they inferior, that they should have no rights respected by this Congress ? I do not consider that any man here will contend for any such doctrine as that. Yet here is your game ; here is your programme: Instead of admitting the white people of the whole Indian Territory together, or creating two States, one of the Indian Territory and one of Oklahoma, or leaving the Indian Territory out entirely and creating a State of Oklahoma and let her go her way, you provide for something that has never been provided for before in our history, that this rich Territory, with its tax-paying power, shall be added to a State after it has been created and in such parcels as may be convenient.
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.