The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1901-06-25
DEPARTMENT JACKS UP
DAWES COMMISSION
They Will Adopt a Better
System Of Spending
Good Money


wsahiugton, D. c, June 2i.-By an
nttcn j. y apply technical rules and reg-
nlatf0 10 ignorant people 80 the Nhoe
taw nation the Dawes cor, MISSION h,tt.
squandcrcd more than 'lpFN !,
ri0frv So the same tme o. aurnlp"
III deprive more than iN) ignorant peopic
af their property rights, ana as u
suit the department 81 inc lnleil H ~
directed "a Tehearng OF tN lu' ~
hnve thus far been I'sp iscl o ny ~,
rornminsi8n aad adfnoui9n'd the w ~
hers of the c0mmissi1n 20 ptfa q t,.
ferent course in ts ~ hnf' "llh VIC
sncb In brief Is th,, declsi0n of the
Advancement in the contested citlaensnip
rssp brought in the ntme or i.l~"ie
woodward "a Mississippi ChpctaW W'N''n
Hhcn WIS mode a - ~ iort, re-
secretary 0f the int atior iN r"el ~
WVVo the dppuitih ~ - o. nay 4ai.A ~
going through and ftrrinllK c'y,7.u. we M
rofne 800 similar cases ine gu
involved are unique ffuninb 'ANN trs
81 the time of th neg '-iaii" tu'
pancing Rabbit treaty. under which the
ChoctaW indl.ns moved o lnlLtn 'crri-
tory and settled upon t"lr present it7-
ervatiOu The lfth article OF thlt treaty
provided ihat an Mississippi tIoctaWa
who desired to remain in mississippi
could do SO boy notifying the agent WitiIn
ak months Of their Intention 70 retain
their lands and that those go ttmhln-
ing should lave an equal interest iu the
Randa OF tho ChOctaw Indians removing
~ Indian Territory, but not Ia fhe trloai
moneys Accordingly over lN9 Mia5ls'
xiupi Chnctaws remained
The Indian agent In charge - me ais
nsfppi Choctaws at che ;ime ~ the ne
rotistiOr Of the trcatv, entered lnto
scheme with planters in Mississlppl !"
fefgaud the Indians VINO desfcd % re-
main out Of their lanls rms MAS shown
81 tht report OF special commissi IN ap-
pointed n pursuance with an act OF con-
gresl which made thorough NV slls :
don ia 1896 The scheme OF lhH "stnt
WAS to fan to- record those indhtn5 VINO
rer,l ained cast thus uimiu,shing the
amount ~ land the Indians might re-
tniu IA the state. iie reported tc iue
aopartmcnt the names OF ohN ~ N
dIana remaining, while a subsequent IN
vgsiigation developed the TACT that over
LoQ8 rem 'tned.
In 1891. 1882, and 1881, the government
provided for the removal under military
supervision Of such Indians as ngnt
desire TO go 90 Indian Territory Ddr-
luE those three years there was very
Aeavy immigration. which connucd 20
limited extent for several s1rs later
"A is these Mississippi Chuctaws tat the
DaUe8 commission mas refused t1 cn-
f,ii upon the ground thlt they nave rot
hecr able 20 furnish sufficient tvidfnce
uf their membership in che MlstssipW
rh1UtaW tr'he.
developed that ia eXnm3ning these tppil-
catiouA d. Dawes commission hrnmtled
purely technical queslo ls, Tie tppA-
taEts We're asked whelher their names
ers appeared upon any of the tr.hiI ROWS
Rcpiying that they did rot know tneN
Nrfs then asked under Whnt PARTICULAR
article OF the treaty uf $50 they ciaim-
~ the right of mcmn ship Ip the
latter query they invariably rcphcd tha'
urnlsa Mrl1oVD quo MouN luu PIP AsQl
stated that she claimed right OF cnfoN
uIcnt under the entire treatmaut ~.
fea technical eNnmin ptinn ulong 49,
hre8 Tho applicants were rejected ny
the roff,ui a1' on
When ihe papers We're seat CD the COM
missioner OF lndiaa 80 llrc tOr epproval,
he insfituted "A auiet 6dt careful exam
nalOu which resulted iti disclosures NOT
81 lli complimentary 20 TIE members OK
ihe commisdon. In his report upon the
cases Go Secretary Hitchcock, tnminle-
e,ou.r fcs severely RrrntgneC the COM
u,is,aners pointing out the tact that lhe
lndlns had been eompeiied 10 nhs"vl
purely technical questions, thot proper
npuurtutity had not 0sFu auntdcd them
al tstabiisN their CLAIMS. mat where at
nda,its were offered tending TO prove the
applicant claim Co citi2enah D. Nlt,t
raing into the cases Ia 1eun the com
nifss.1n recommended that ana OF lht
pausrB be returned 20 the cCmnissioA
With inslructlOns thtr they reopen lne
rasaG ana pusue a more liherh pohcl ll
6caiing with unlettered ann nNeuncWeu
-eoole lie urged that the commission
~ Jirceted 40 hold greetings pt auch
Diaceg lR would he C0nNHneut % the az
nlicanta al as to relieve thtm nA thv
necessity OF going miles away 70 pI,Ntht
tbeIr ras,s. In the opinion nan itG dawn
- Acting Secretary Ryan ln the case
81 Lizzie oW0dward which WIS made
test case, the secretary reviews the
Frtlon OF the COmmissi lu hrieflN, ftlofA
40 the commissioner ut indian affairs re-
NNa HHf IN n.H ID la o.
commission with instructions % insti-
Iuta further investi CATIONS A copy OF
the Commissioners letter se'rrclr arr
f5ugninR ihe Dawes commission is also
tnCiaaei with the secretary dceiaion
S'be secretary SAYS in part
The name of the applicant ls written
ID your records as ldh te woodward, ui
though her application ana PAPERS Hlfo
with u am, Lizzie Woodald. ln her ap-
Fiication, which is sworn 10 'N htr. she
traces her claim back 20 Tom woodward
ana Mary Mingo, moth alleged 20 be
tiOId Mississippi Ch1cMwa. whose 1ot'i
Lewis Woodward Is the fothrr OF ihls
applicant The record OF hel cial eN
SANITATION and she was che only witness
ahus examined. shows no question was
asked AS 20 her grAndpafents anu IRE
record DOES not show tnat any vfort
was maie to ascertan whether they
were in fact Mssisalnpi chocluws 70
sFcma that Lqwis Woodland apple at
the same time FOR Identification hy YOU
as a Mississippi ehoctlw and II may
~ n.y. the facts as TO hia parents We're
acyelupcd in the aXtmmanon 81 his
ciaim N so. those facts should have
been considered by y0u ln the cNaafinn.
iiOn 0f the daughters claim and should
have been brought 20 the attention OF
where several parties of one family pre-
eent cl1iins their cases should b c1n-
sacfod iogether 90 toe cNtop1 at tenot