Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1900-04-05

the great expense OF trying q case
only to find we had no forum and
no court before which a case could
be made.
We were told that we would
have a judicial adjudication, and
we never received that. The
Dawes commission commenced to
receive applications in the Chero-
kee nation on April 10, 1896. The
law was mandatory that all appli-
cations should be fled within
ninety days and all decided within
ninety days thereafter. Over 5000
cases, involving the rights of more
than 10000 people, were filed dur
ing that time. At the same time
this commission was receiving ap-
plications for all of the other ma
tions in the Indian Territory, and
there were about 1000 applications
in the Greeks, and about 5000 ap-
plications in the Choctaw and
Chickssaw country. When the
time came to pass upon these linn
tied by law 10 ninety days, the
commission, or the working force
of the commission, left the Terri
tory for a portion of that time.
These applications involved ques-
tions of geneology, questions of
residence; and the application of
the tribal laws. They were COM
pIicated, yet every one was passed
upon, and the average time given
to the consideration of these nu-
merous records, if fairly figured,
would amount to about ten min
utes to every case. From this de-
cision, rendered under circum-
stances which ought to absolve the
commission from any blame, if er-
rors were committed appeals We're
allowed TO the district court. And
it has been understood that the
commission has seemed to take an
active part in efforts to sustain
their own decisions. No more ar
dent advocates of the CORRECTNESS
of their conclusions have ever ex-
listed than the members of that
commission, while those same de-
cisions were rendered without the
possibility of the consideration
they merited. These cases went
to the district court and were re-
ferred to q special master in chan
Gerry. In the Cherokee nation Mr..
DeGreffenreid and Mr.. Gibson
have stated both publicly and pri-
vately that some of these records
came to them with the seals un-
broken and the word rejected"
written upon the envelope. This
was probably due to the circum-
stances under which they were de-
cided, but we have the right to
object to this kind of considera-
tion, and particularly to object
when the judge attempts to defend
this consideration and claims that
common justice has been done,
and that mistakes have not been
made and the parties are not en-
titled to relief.
AS this letter does not refer to
the district court | shall lot at.
tempt to say anything of the judg-
ments made therein. But it was
reco gnized by the claimants that
the Dawes commission, or rather
members of the Dawes commits
sion, seem to be prejudiced against
the claimants and in favor of the
rolls of the Indian nations. This
course was certain to be popular.
1t was catering to majority, and
had We not just cause to say it was
not right?
We sought the right of appeal
upon the questions of fact. Mr..
McKennon Immediately went to
Washington and by reason of his
position and his supposed ac-
quaintance with conditions, his
opposition was the strongest thing
We had to overcome in securing
the right of appeal.
Nor is this all. In the Choctaw
and Chickasaw nations the claim
ants met with the same opposition
from the court, which was spe-
cially created to pass upon their
rights. There were cases in which
errors were made. Cases in which
bv mistskA-or inadvertanee Of
counsel an entire family was ad-
mitted by the court with the son
or daughter left off, and where
ever those things have been done
the Dawes commission have not
only refused to enroll, but have |
apparently been the earnest advo-
Gates of the Indian nation as
against the claimant.
We do not object TO their apply
ing the Law as they find it, but