Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-02-04
rHAr INvEsrIaAT1oN.

~ tie NitihfI TAIN, anu tnOsc VINO
read il have had ample opportuni-
iy TO consider its character and de-
termine the correctness of the COM
mittee's report. But as many
perhaps have read the statements
without comparing them on par
ticular points, it may serve them
favor by doing this for them. A
cursory reading Of them would
hardly reveal the many inconsist-
cnccs there are between them,
though, evidently there is an un-
dorstanding among those Of the
Witnesses who are personally in
tcrcsted in the matter as to certain
points.
The first question as published
in the CHIEFTAIN, was TO Mr..
Ross, and as follows:
"Was there more than one ap-
praisement Of the occupied lands?"
Ans. ~ cannot positively say;
there was but one appraisement
that / know of at 47.49 cents per
acre; this appraisement was made
Z by an act Of congress; / don't know
of any other appraisement."
Similar question TO Phillips:
"Did you, at the time you made
the address to the national council,
May 1888, special session, give the
na ional council TO understand that
the United States government had
raised the price of the lands, occu-
pied by the Pawnees, Poncas, Nez
= Perces, Otoes and Missourias to
s1.25 per acre, and that the $780,
600 was appropriated on that raised
,appraisement?"
cans. ~ stated that the $780,
600 was on the occupied lands by
the Pawnees, Poncas Nez Perces,
Otoes and Missourias, and the
price of the lands was about 81. H."
q 1t serves Phillips well to have a
reacherous memory, if he can be
Sseused for lying on that account.
1t seems that he has forgot all
about what he said when he spoke
from the stand in the capital
grounds, and avowed that the $780,
900 was the diff between the
appraised value of the occupied
lands and s1.25 per acre TO which
1--WE had them raised"
How the nations agent and at
torney must have sweated and
scratched his pate as he labored
through the process of long division |
to find his Sly per acre. His
opinion of the intelligence of this
nation is very low indeed, and that
their knowledge of the manner in
,shich the government ofthe United
States does 6usiness>is about as
JNcDsuG. his repugnance to MAXI
ing false representations. Had ex-
Ipense of the survey of the lands
been accounted for in the payment
of the 100000, it would have been
as a sum subtracted from the price
Of the lands at s125, and so stated;
and there would have been no ne
cessity for an "about," but exactly
80 much.
Further on he says: "There
never was an appraisement of these
lands at ALL" Mr.. Ross was too
honest to say there never had been,
but that he knew of one. Had
Phillips maintained that there new
er had been an appraisement ac-
to treaty, he would have
been near the truth, but he was
guarding other points and could
not so qualify his statement. He
was sharp enough to preserve an
of consistency with his
former acts as the nations agent and
attorney, and rather than entangle
his remedy was in a des-
perate denial Of an appraiscment
at all. He would like, no doubt,
70 smother if he could the part he
took in bringing about the appraise-
ment, and his effort in raising it
from forty-one cents per acre, the
original price fixed, TO 47.49 cents,
md the recollection Of his glorifi-
sation at success.
Question TO Mr.. Wolfe: "Was
here ever an appraisement Of lands
Kest Of the Arkansas riyer?"
Ans. "There was an arbitrary
under an act Of con-
PRESS in 1872, not authorized by
he treaty Of 1866. = + = "
Mr.. Wolfe contradicts his frien /
phillips, who said there never was
N appraisement at all, but takes /
he precaution not TO be caught
.Rping should the committee get
~ t..:..tt.,o rfrio ,,.rafrauaapt