The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1917-03-07
DECISION DOES
NO 7 AFF ECT
MANY TITLES
ARTICLE RELATIVE TO SUPREME
COURT DECISION APPEARING IN
NEWSPAPER is MISLEADING,
SAYS LOCAL ATTORNEY.

In todays Oklahoman appeared
an article relative to supreme court
decision involving land titles in east.
ern Oklahoma.
In a sweeping statement It said
that approximately $25OOOOOO would
be involved while it is asserted by
local attorneys that less than that
many thousands would cover the On.
tire decision.
Local attorneys who have been
handling Indian affairs are inclined to
criticise the action of the department
for this action and are not slow in
expressing themselves.
Following is the article in to.
days OkIahoman relative to the court
decision:
AN Oklahoma Indian land title,
similar to those in which investments
amounting to $lOOOO,OOO are saif to
have been made was Tuesday held in
valid by the supreme court in suit
brought b. C. Il. Cannon against d. K.
Johnston, involving jefferson count.
lands. The court decided that "sur.
plus Choctaw and Chickasaw land
allotments cannot be sold by heirs
Immediately on the death of the In.
dian allottees."
"The decision handed down by tho
United States supreme court IN the
case of Cannon against Johnston, in.
yolying Jefferson county land. will af.
feet title to between $25,OOO,OOO and
jO,00O,OOO, according to a statement
issued by Joe II. Strain, assistant su.
perlntondant of the Five Civilized
Tribes.
ut will be Of particular interest to
Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. he
asserted The decision virtually means
that the death of an allottee does not
remove restrictions This will abolish
a great evil with which the Indian
officials have had to contend for
long time. In many cases grafters
and INSCRIPTIONS men have pounced
upon the heirs to valuable allotments
as soon as the allottee was dead and
have taken the land for song.
Not only the title to land bought
from the heirs OF allottees will be
affected by the decision, out hundreds
Of valuable oil and gas leases will be
similarly affected. This decision will
not apply to Creek and Seminole In.
dians, Il believed, because differ.
cnce in treaty 'stipulations."
Hugh Ledbetter of this city. who
has had much experience In Indian
land titles consented to the publica,
tion of the following statement yester-
day and his opinion Is concurred in
by practically an members OF the 10.
cal bar The case involved In the
supreme court was handled throughout
| by Mr. Ladbotter and he Is In position
to make q statement relative TO the
affair:
"Thc land was allotted to Agnes
Wolfe. a iull blood Chickaslw Indian,
in July 1903, and shortly thereafter
she died. leaving surviving as her sole
heir her brother Wnbmn Wolfe. also
la fun blood Indian. Wnburn Wolfe
conveyed, by warranty deed. In Octo.
| ber 1903. the entire allotment 10 a.
IJ Waldock Waldock then sold 20
| the Bankers Trust company, who sold
20 Horny Wilson, who sold to G.. p.
Cannon.
"n 1909 Wnbum Wolfe sold the
same lanl again, selling this time to
D. r. Johnston and Johnston had his
deed approved In accordance with sec.
tion 3 Of the act OF congress of Ma9
/ a. 1908, and thereafter sued Cannon
for the land The trial court held thct
under section l6 OF the Supplemental
/ Treaty between the Chicusaws ami
Choctaws, ratified September 2j. 1902,
the surplus part OF the allotment
was restricted In the hands of the
heir one fourth In one year one
fourth IN three years and the remain
der in five years. but held the home.
stead part OF the allotment alionlhlc.
The state supreme court affirmed the
decision o. the trial court and the So.
rreme court"