Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1891-06-11
rmar raounLEsonr nom.
mr. n.rls side Of The csntro,erss Sc, rofiA


EDiron CniKFrAfSi-There has been 30 much
said, through your columns, In regard TO the
vlnita and Coneyvllie road, that n now be-
hooves us TO give some facts In the case. AZ
there are some people who do not know but
these articiss 'ase .true-for Instance the re-
port OF the committee printed last week. We
do not question the veracIty Of said commit
tee, but we do think that they were made
'cats-paw" ofby NJ. Frazee. who approached
thom, one by one, a. he does everyone else, In
his usual confidential manner and represented
himself a. a victim OF malice. thereby enilst-
ing their sympathy. We do hold malice
against NJ. Frazce; II Is q question OF our
iig'ils AL not OF his covetousness.
t'ns committee says "we ind there are
three routes offered TO the public around NJ.
Frazee's farm" This assertion (Which Ia un-
true, must have emanated from NJ Frazee.
The road worked by Robert Chamberlin was
the correct laid out road, with one exception,
1. O., one little draw Immediately north Of
Elm branch, into which he dumped few
loads OF rock. which was for the convenience
Of the ti,ae being. However, this did not
change the line OF the road.
The road opened by NJ. Frazee Ia '0l we. do
not consider public road, az we do rot know
what court has invested him with authority TO
discontinue the Old and lay out and onstrrct
new public highways and mail routes His
agreeing TO keep said road in good repair, Ia
no guarantee or security to us that 1t will be
done.
The third road mentioned was laid ont In
1885 by a commission regularly appointed by
the court, and not again on the 10th OF May,
/ 1881, as stated In above report. As this state
ment Is false, the committee must also have
had their Information from NJ. Frazee. the
| fountain head.
No part Of the road ori sinally laid out by the
commission has ever been set aside. Tie new
route spoken OF by the committee must have
been shown them by NJ. Frazee as we know Of
no new route being laid out since 1896. except
the one laid out by NJ. Frazee. which, we
admit. IL illegal. We do not doubt but what
NJ. frazee did show the committee a line
{ represented TO be ours. over hollows and ra-
vines, and they are excusable for their report
In the premises, not knowing any better
| still, we think we should have been repre-.
scntcd In their inspection. that they might
have had both sides presented 10 them.
The committee report further, that they do
not see why the road should pass through the
Z farm OF NJ. Frazeei and we say. We do not see
/ why his farm should pass over and destroy our
rohd, to the Inconvenience Of the many and
for the benefit Of the individual. We con
slider him ''transgressor
As to our road and the money and work eN-
pended thereon being yaiueiess TO vinita. we
are willing to leave that tC the merchants to
decide, for they know the value OF Cabin creek
trade. coal aud farm produce. Yet we would
| likewise be glad TO see the Big Cabin crossing
worked. As for the road being used for twenty
years that Is an cxaggeration by about ten
| years.
| We do not think the report Of the committee
will affect the matter, ss II Is now out Of our
hands, being brought before the court by q
petition from NJ. FiaEee asking to have road
changed, and another from us asking that II
remain whore originally laid out. The decl-
sion will be rendered the first Monday in July,
when we all expect to abide by same.
In reference TO Frazee's petition, we would
say he has good many signers who neither
, know nor care anything about the roadi and
others whom he secured through nj ||||
sentations. who anerward sislf.t 1oursf& IA
stated Frazee's road now i.ts hftItt H1I
ours, having been worked Willy W. INtl
pended work through the-doid tain I 1sctsion
was rendered A. kAtN-
4. W. CnANnEniiS,
Two OF the original commissioners who laid
| mt roal