The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1920-10-10
[HE CROSBIE
HEIGHTS CASE
Roth Parties Make State
ment of the
Dispute
IS RETICENT
property Owners Secured for
Investment but Apprecia-
ton Is In Danger

Tb. first Of November will find
H. tho courts here another indian
L3ea ftlt bids fair to bC an equal Of
an famous Indian case brought up
H. ihs rl.' years. This is the case
|"iel tt Mary Partridge against all
..,.,.rt. owners In tho CtU-bie
addition ana effects the
,rersrtv of over gao people and
,grip1. firms and trust companies.
Tho uoiut Of debate is whether
n, NOT fh. secretary OF the interior
I,,d M the time of the action, the
-rt fn remove the restrictions
r,on the alienation Of the land al
i,,1 L. Mary Partridge who sold
o,E- acres to j. r.. CroSbie by war
y,ufv deed under date Of February
itf 1905. MIR. Crosbie, in turn. sold
~ MATTED land TO various citizens
Nv warranty deeds ana for that
,,ueh of the lands value. Mr.
crrsbIs stands liable The increase
in ya'uu which has been consider
.t,o. will be- lost by the individual
aurery &c the case is won by the
proseCu' on.
Mrs Partridge, who lives between
Tulsa and sand Springs at the station
known ls Medic. makes no state
mont .onccrning the suit. She has
mt the entire matter into the hands
~ her attorney, II. B. Martin, who
made tho following statement: THE
case depends absolutely upon
technical point OF law. There is no
harm nor injury, nor misdcmcanor
on tho part Of any one to be dis
cusscd or considered II Is a matter
of record alone, and thcre will he
10 necessity for witnesses during the
'ra, The question is whether or
not the secretary of the interior had
the mower, undor the statutes OF the
United states, to remove the rcstric-
tons upon the alienation of the land
owned by Mary Partridge. The land
was part OF the allotment Of Mary
Partridge who is blood Greek
Edian. She applied to the secretary
Of the interior to remove the re-
stricu0us that she might sell the
land for towuSitc purposes, IL was
granted. Then the department OF
Justice objected and claimed that the
secretary had no right to remove
said restrictions, The protest was
undecided, and the title declared
clear This was in April, 1908. In
May, 1905. the act giving this right
was passed and went into effect
July /, 1908. The plaintiffs theory
u the case is, that said secretary of
the interior had no pO~cr TO give
order of removal We do not know
who first brought this matter up
with the plaintiff. Probably tho
bureau Of Indian affairs at Wash r.
irgton, d. c.. or some relative OF
hers who was here to see her from
the north"
j. f. Croshie, when asked his opip-
Ion Of the validity of his title, and
Consequently the titles of the various
owners Of the land said; MY law
yers are looking into the matter and
We are confident that when all the
4 points under discussion are cleared
up there will be no cause for anxiety
on the part OF any property holders
IN The addition, As for the value OF
Fl the land at the time of sale. there
Fl are over 24O people who have my
guarantee and that is as good as
b gold. ln my opinion, some grafters
have seen an opportunity to make
. some money and have instigated
the whole affair without first ac-
ID ouaintng themselves with all the
laws that govern such a transaction
n J. r. Woodard, attorney for the
n Exchange Trust company who holds
many mortgages I'm the Crosbie ad-
dInon, had the title OF this land in
vestigatol in 1918. Tho following
IS section Of the letter sent bach
IN reply by the acting superintend'