Volume 18 , Issue 42

May, 1894 - Condition of Indian Territory

It was in the Muskogee Phoenix, Muskogee, Oklahoma, dated 24 May 1894, Thursday, page 1, that we found this "Full Report" of the Teller Committee on the condition in the Indian Territory. It was a continuation of a May 17, 1894 report a week earlier.

Found on Newspapers.com

It began with ... "Outside of the Cherokee country there are no laws for the organization of municipal governments for these growing towns, and no means by which the population of these towns can establish and maintain streets and sidewalks or organize and maintain a constabulary, such as has been found indispensable in urban communities."

We find the Indian Territory in 1894 was well watered, with considerable forest, and, in some sections, very excellent timber lands. Coal was found in nearly all parts of the Territory, and especially in the Choctaw and Chickasaw countries, and it was of an excellent character. The climate was good, the winters were mild, the soil productive, and the natural wealth very great. It was believed that the hilly country, sometimes called the mountain region, contained valuable minerals. It was certainly capable of maintaining a large population in independence and comfort.

This section of the country was set apart to the Indian with the avowed purpose of maintaining an Indian community beyond and away from the influence of white people. It was stipulated that they should have unrestricted self-government and full jurisdiction over persons and property within their respected limits, and that we would protect them against intrusion of white people, and that we would not incorporate them in a political organization without their consent. Every treaty , from 1828 to and including the treaty of 1866 was based on this idea of exclusion of the Indians from the whites and nonparticipating by trial affairs. We made it possible for the Indians of that section of country to maintain their tribal relations and their Indian policy, laws, and civilization if they wished so to do. And the isolation and exclusiveness sought to be given to them by our solemn treaties was destroyed, and they are overrun by a population of strangers five times in number to their own, it was not the fault of the government of the Untied States, but comes from their own acts in admitting whites to citizenship under their laws and by inviting whites to come within their jurisdiction, to become traders, farmers, and to follow professional pursuits.

It must be assumed in considering this question that the Indians themselves have determined to abandon the policy of exclusiveness, and to freely admit white people within the Indian Territory, for it cannot be possible that they can intend to demand the removal of the white people either by the government of the Untied States or their own. They must have realized that when their policy of maintaining an Indian community isolated from the whites was abandoned for a time, it was abandoned forever.

We do not overlook the fact there were a class of white people denominated by the Indians as intruders, who were not there with the approval of the Indians, but the number of this class was so small as compared with the white population not claiming rights of citizenship that they may not be considered in this connection. The United States was bound by its treaties to remove such whites as made an unauthorized settlement in the Indian Territory, and was taking measures to remove from the Cherokee country a large band of such intruders. These intruders claimed to be Indian citizens, and that they were invited by the Cherokee authorities to reside within the Territory, but the Cherokee authorities hold that they were not Cherokees. We believe there had been but little complaint in other sections of the Indian Territory of intruders.

The Indians of the Indian Territory maintained an Indian government, had legislative bodies and executive and judicial officers. All controversies between Indian citizens were disposed o in these local courts; controversies between white people and Indians could not be settled in these courts, but must be taken into the court of the Territory established by the United States. This court was established in accordance with the provision of the treaties with the Choctaws, Chickasaws, creeks and sEminoles, but no such provision seemed to have been made in the treaty with the Cherokees. We believe it must be admitted that there was just cause of complaint among the Indians as to the character of their own courts, and a good deal of dissatisfaction had been expressed as to the course of procedure and final determination of matters submitted to these courts. The determination of these courts are final, and, so far, the government of the Untied States had not directly interfered with their determinations. perhaps we should accept the recent case where the Secretary of the Interior thought it his duty to intervene to prevent the execution of a number of Choctaw citizens. As the Indian courts established within the limits of the Five Civilized Tribes had jurisdiction only of matters civil or criminal arising between members of the same tribe, it became necessary to provide courts with jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters arising between Indians of different tribes, and between white citizens and Indian citizens. Accordingly, by the act of January 31, 1877, the "country lying west of Missouri and Arkansas known as the Indian Territory," was attached to the western district of Arkansas.

The Indian Territory at that time included what was then the territory of the Five Civilized Tribes, together with he territory then embraced within the limits of Oklahoma. Very few white people were then residents within the Indian Territory, but as the practice of the Indians to admit white citizens into their territory increased, it was found that the jurisdiction conferred upon the United States court in the State of Arkansas did not meet the requirements of the situation.

Persons committing offenses within the territory, not punishable in the Indian courts, were taken in some instances, a distance of nearly 600 miles to the court at Fort Smith - and parties having civil controversies were not able to maintain their rights on account of the distance tone traveled and the expense entailed by proceedings in the Fort Smith court. So, by the act of January 6, 1883, that part of the Indian Territory lying north of the Canadian River and east of Texas and the one-hundredth meridian not occupied by the Creek, Cherokee, and Seminole tribes, was annexed to and made part of the district of Kansas, and the United States district courts at Wichita and Fort Scott were given original and exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the territory against the laws of the United States. By the same act that part of the Indian Territory not annexed to the district of Kansas, and not set apart and occupied by Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole tribes, was annexed to the northern district of Texas, and jurisdiction was given to that court over all offenses committed within the limits of the territory last named.

Prior to March 1, 1889, there was no court whatever in the Territory, except the Indian courts. But Congress, by act of that date, established a "United States court in the Indian Territory," extending over the entire Territory, including the present limits of Oklahoma and the Five Civilized Tribes, with exclusive jurisdiction over al offenses against the laws of the Untied States committed within the Indian Territory not punishable by death or imprisonment at hard labor, and jurisdiction in civil cases arising between citizens of the Untied States, residents of the Indian Territory, when the value of the thing in controversy or damages claimed amounted to more than $100; and also jurisdiction over all controversies arising out of mining leases or contracts for mining coal made by the Indians. Two terms of said court were to be held each year at Muskogee, in the Indian Territory.

It was by section 17 of the same act the land embraced within the Chickasaw Nation and a portion of the Choctaw Nation, and all the part of the Indian Territory not theretofore annexed tot he district of Kansas, was annexed to the eastern district of Texas. This left the land embrace within the Cherokee Nation and a portion of the Choctaw Nation attached to the western district of Kansas, and a portion of the Indian Territory lying north of the Canadian River attached to the judicial district of Kansas.

Thus the United States courts at Paris, Texas, Fort Scott, Kansas, retained jurisdiction, respectively, over all offenses punishable by death or imprisonment at hard labor arising within the Indian Territory, as then existing, except matters arising between Indians of the same tribe,, which were still punishable only in the Indian courts.

It was by the act of May 2, 1890, all that portion of the Indian Territory except that occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes and by the Indian tribes within the Quapaw Agency was included within the boundaries of the Territory of Oklahoma; but the Cherokee Outlet and the Public Land Strip and the Indian reservations included within said boundaries were not to become fully a part of said Territory util the proclamation of the President should be made to that effect, and in case of the Cherokee Outlet and the Indian reservations not until the title of the Indians should be extinguished.

By the same act a new Indian Territory was created, consisting of all that portion of the Indian Territory as it had formerly existed not then included within the boundaries of the Territory of Oklahoma; and the same was divided into three divisions for the purpose of holding the terms of the court established at Muskogee by act of March 1, 1889. The places for holding said court were fixed at Muskogee in the Creek country, at McAlester int he Choctaw country, and at Ardmore in the Chickasaw country. The jurisdiction of the country was further defined, and certain general laws of the State of Arkansas were made applicable to the Indian Territory, except as to causes, civil and criminal, in which members of the respective Indian tribes, by nativity or adoption, were the only parties.

The act of May 2, 1890, authorized the appointment of three commissioners within each of the divisions of the Untied States court in the Indian Territory, who, in addition tot he powers of commissioners of the circuit court, should be ex-officio notaries public and have power to solemnize marriages, and were given the powers of justices of the peace of the sTate of Arkansas, but limited in their jurisdiction in civil suits to $100, with an appeal from their judgement.

It was estimated that at that then there were between 250,000 and 300,000 white people, not citizens of the Indian nations by marriage or adoption, residing within the Indian Territory. They were not and could not be subject to the laws of the Indian nations, and could not obtain or enforce their rights in the Indian courts. These courts had no jurisdiction over them, either civil or criminal. All jurisdiction, therefore, over matters arising between white citizens in the Indian Territory and between white citizens and Indians and between Indians of different tribes, was thus vested partly in the Untied States courts at Fort Smith, Arkansas; Paris, Texas, and partly int he Untied States court established in the Indian Territory. The latter court had no jurisdiction of felonies, and no other court had final jurisdiction over misdemeanors - the powers of the commissioners in misdemeanors being merely those of an examining magistrate.

The reason urged against this transfer of jurisdiction from the courts in Arkansas and Texas to the United States court in the Indian Territory no longer exists. It was first conferred because there was no court int he Indian Territory. It had been continued since the establishment of a court there because of the claim that it was impossible to secure proper juries to serve in the Indian territory.

The Indians maintained schools for their own children. The Choctaws, Cherokees and Creeks maintained schools for the recognized colored citizens, but the Chickasaws had denied to these freedmen not only the right of suffrage, especially provided for in the treaty of 1866, but had also denied tot he children of freemen the right to participate in their schools. We find in the Chickasaw country a freedmen population somewhat in excess of that of the Indian population, not only deprived of citizenship, but denied the privilege of schools, so that the children of that class were growing up in ignorance except in a few cases where schools had been maintained by individual means for the education of the freedmen children. This was in plain and open violation of the treaty of 1866.

The large white population of the Indian Territory were without the means of maintaining schools, except by means of rate bills.
  |  View or Add Comments (0 Comments)   |   Receive updates ( subscribers)  |   Unsubscribe

---