Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1909-02-23
DuRANT, OKLAHOMA, Feb. Il, 1900

DuRANT, OKLAHOMA, Feb. IA, 1900
E. B. THAYER,
Wausau, Wis.
Friend Gene: About week ago the
Record Herald had an editorial on
Governor Haskell" which was so
manifestly unfair, both to the governor
and the state OF Oklahoma, that wrote
a communication to that paper explain
ing the Muskogee townsite deal that
had been taken advantage of by Presi
dent Roosevelt to vent his spite against
Gov. Haskell. Republican papers in
the North seem to take great delight
in casting odium on the new state OF
Oklahoma, because its democracy and
advanced stand for constitution and
legislation in favor of the common
people, However, / supposed the
editor of the Record-Herald would be
fair enough to publish the Oklahoma
side of the question. especially in view
of the fact that he had devoted consid
cradle space at various times in setting
forth the Roosevelt-Hearst side of it
But in this was mistaken; he informed
meahe hasn't the space. If you care to
publish it will be pleased to have you
do so, and believe there are many
among your readers VINO will not be-
grudge the time to read it. l enclose
it herewith Sincerely yours,
r. E. POWERS.
MUsKoGEE, OKLA Feb. s, 1902.
EDITOR RECoRD-HERALD,
Wausau, Wis.
Dear Sir:
In your issue of February 5th you pub
lished an editorial treating of the indict-
ment of Gov. Charles N. Haskell, of
this state, for alleged fraudulent land
deals in which you said:
''The indictment of Gov. Haskell
of Oklahoma, by the federal grand
| jury for conspiracy in connection
with the scheduling of Muskogee
townsite lots, while not particularly
unexpected, will be great blow to
the newest state in the Union
| The fact that governor of sover-
eign state ia indicted by a federal
4 =
| both Oklahoma and its people"
Ordinarily, your contention that 1.-THE
indictment of the governor OF sover-
eign state by federal grand jury is a
severe criticism" world hold true, but
when you take into consideration the
strenuositg of the ear of the White
House, and the manner in which United
States Senators and Congressman have
opinion, even without the formality of
a grand jury; and have even such
| champions of truthfulness as the news
paper correspondents have been per-
emptorily jammeu into the Ananias
club because they dared to write that
which was not complimentary to the
wielder OF the "big stick" it is not very
strange that governor should be shown
scant courtesy
But, believing your readers would
be pleased to hear from one ION the
ground" and whose sole purpose is to
report the facts in the case as he found
| them, will venture brief account of
the Muskogee townsite controversy,
basing my statements on information
Cleaned from disinterested parties, both
democrats and republicans.
| 1t was back in 1900, that Muskogee,
then a municipality of about 1000
people, under law passed by congress,
was surveyed out and established
officially by federal authority as town.
site While for a few years previous
thereto it had a municipal form of gov
| eminent, the residents did not and
could not own the land, simply have a
/ possessory right, as it were. When it
came TO the establishing of a townsite,
commission was appointed to have
charge of proceedings. This commits
sion consisted of three men, one ap-
pointed by the secretary of the interior,
one by the mayor of the town, and the
other by Chief Porter of the Greek
| Indian nation, in whose domain il was.
This commission appraised the lots and
made the allotments.
|
held possession of piece of land prev
| ious to its having been taken into the
| townsite, should have the privilege of
purchasing one-fourth of his holding,
at two thirds of its appraised value; any
| man having a business building or
dwelling on lot, could buy that lot,
not to exceed one lot for business and
one for residence purposes, at one-half
the appraised value; and any man hold
ing vacant town lots, not to exceed four
acres, could purchase them, if he so de-
sired, by paying one-half their appraised
value.
When person appeared before the
commission and claimed title to piece
of property by right of occupancy, his
claim was recorded and ninety days
time was given for any one to dispute
it. If no one questioned his claim with
in the specified time, the property was
| scheduled to the claimant, and he made
payment for it to the government
Indian agent.
Now, where the alleged fraudulent
procurement of lots came in was this
wise: A man who was, under the law,
entitled to probably one business
lot and one residence lot, but
| who wanted more, would take sew
eral other lots in the names of relatives
| or friends, living perhaps in Michigan
or Ohio. aud later would have those rel
atives or friends quit claim the property
! to him; though, of,course ifthey wanted,
/ they could refuse to do so and hold the
property themselves. The lots, the pro.
curement of which is the basis of the
present suits, were situated in a cow
pasture southeast of the town. and