Statement of the Chickasaw Freedmen, Setting Forth Their Wrongs, Grievances, Claims and Needs (1894)

Hon. Henry L. Dawes, Chairman,
Hon. Meredith H. Kidd,
Hon. Archibald S. McKennon,
Commission to The Five Civilized Tribes, Muskogee, Indian Territory.

Gentlemen: The undersigned, a committee appointed by the Chickasaw freedmen in convention assembled, as shown by the accompanying copy of the proceedings of said convention, to present to and lay before your honorable Commission the grievances, condition, claims, and the wants of the Chickasaw freedmen, most respectfully request that you give careful consideration to the "Memorial of the Chickasaw freedmen, adopted at said convention, and contained in the copy of the proceedings thereof before referred to; and also to what we, the duly authorized and empowered committee of the said convention of Chickasaw freedmen, shall herein present in their behalf.

Their Hope and Confidence in the Dawes Commission.

Coming, as does your honorable Commission, to the Indian Territory, with the authority of Congress, to negotiate with the Five Civilized Tribes, to such extent as will "enable the ultimate creation of a State or States of the Union which shall embrace the lands within said Indian Territory," the Chickasaw freedmen, whose domicile is within the Chickasaw country, where they have been born and reared, and where they have treaty rights unfulfilled, deem it right and proper that they should lay before your honorable Commission their condition and grievances, and present to you their claims, needs, and wants. And they do this with the greater confidence, because they recognize in the members of your honorable Commission men of great ability and broad statesmanship, desirous of ascertaining the true state and condition of the whole of the population domiciled within the domain of several Indian nations comprising the Five Civilized Tribes; what rights, if any, they have, their grievances, and the wrongs they have suffered, and not only anxious, but abundantly able to find and report what is the true remedy for the existing evils, and the proper measure of relief for those who have been compelled to suffer injustice at the hands either of the Chickasaw Nation or the United States.

The chairman of your Commission, the Hon. Henry L. Dawes, is a statesman of exalted national reputation, having had long and wide experience in both Houses of the Congress of the United States, where he was recognized as peculiarly and especially skilled in all matters concerning the relation of the Indian and negro population of the country to the United States Government, and where his wisdom and statesmanship have contributed to the satisfactory solution and adjustment of so many of the difficult problems connected therewith. Therefore we the more rejoice that it is our high privilege to lay our matters before your Commission, and we indulge in great hope that the dark night of our existence will soon give way to the dawn of a better day.

Attorneys for the Chickasaw Freedmen.

We have secured for co-operation with our local attorney, Hon. Joseph P. Mullen, of Fort Smith, Ark., the assistance of Hon. R. V. Belt, late Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and so long connected with the Indian branch of the Department of the Interior under Secretaries Teller, Lamar, Vilas and Noble, in the future prosecution of our claims, so long neglected for want of proper help.


The treaty relations between the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians existing at the outbreak of the war of the rebellion were broken and interrupted during that conflict, when loyalty to the United States was renounced and adhesion to the Southern Confederacy was proclaimed by treaty, and in which many of the members of those nations gave active aid against the United States. After the close of that conflict, which resulted in the emancipation of African slavery wherever it existed in this country, it became necessary to reconstruct and re-establish treaty relations between the United States and the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory. The treaty of April 28, 1866, with the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations is the result as to them.

The provisions of that treaty, so far as they sought to establish and fix the status of the persons of African descent, formerly held in slavery by the Chickasaw Indians, and their descendants, are found in articles two, three, and four thereof, which are as follows:

Art. II. The Choctaws and Chickasaws hereby covenant and agree that henceforth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, in accordance with laws applicable to all members of the particular nation, shall exist in said nations."

Art. III. The Choctaws and Chickasaws, in consideration of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, hereby cede to the United States the territory west of the 98° west longitude, known as the leased district, provided that the said sum shall be invested and held by the United States, at an interest not less than five per cent, in trust for the said nations, until the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, respectively, shall have made such laws, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to give all persons of African descent, resident in the said nations at the date of the treaty of Fort Smith, and their descendants, heretofore held in slavery among said nations, all the rights, privileges and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nations, except in the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by, or belonging to, said nations, respectively; and also to give to such persons who were residents as aforesaid, and their descendants, forty acres each of the land of said nations, on the same tems as the Choctaws and Chickasaws, to be selected on the survey of said land, after the Choctaws and Chickasaws and Kansas Indians have made their selections as herein provided; and immediately on the enactment of such laws, rules, and regulations, the said sum of three hundred thousand dollars shall be paid to the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the proportion of three-fourths to the former and one-fourth to the latter, less such sum at the rate of one hundred dollars per capita, as shall be sufficient to pay such persons of African descent before referred to, as within ninety days after the passage of such laws, rules, and regulations, shall elect to remove, and actually remove, from the said nations, respectively. And should the said laws, rules, and regulations not be made by the legislatures of the said nations, respectively, within two years from the ratification of this treaty, then the said sum of three hundred thousand dollars shall cease to be held in trust for the said Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and be held for the use and benefit of such of said persons of African descent as the United States shall remove from said Territory, in such manner as the United States shall deem proper, the United States agreeing, within ninety days from the expiration of the said two years, to remove from said nations all such persons of African descent as may be willing to remove; those remaining, or returning after having been removed from said nations, to have no benefit of said sum of three hundred thousand dollars, or any part thereof, but shall be upon the same footing as other citizens of the United States in the said nations. 

Art. IV. The said nations further agree that all negroes, not otherwise disqualified or disabled, shall be competent witnesses in all civil and criminal suits and proceedings in the Choctaw and Chickasaw courts, any law to the contrary notwithstanding; and they fully recognize the right of the freedmen to a fair remuneration on reasonable and equitable contracts for their labor, which the law should aid them to enforce. And they agree, on the part of their respective nations, that all laws shall be equal in their operation upon Choctaws, Chickasaws, and negroes, and that no distinction affecting the latter shall at any time be made, and that they shall be treated with kindness and be protected against injury; and they further agree that while the said freedmen now in Choctaw and Chickasaw nations remain in said nations, respectively, they shall be entitled to as much land as they may cultivate for the support of themselves and their families in cases where they do not support themselves and families by hiring, not interfering with existing improvements without the consent of the occupant, it being understood that in the event of the making of the laws, rules, and regulations aforesaid, the forty acres aforesaid shall stand in place of the land cultivated as last aforesaid. (14 Stat., 769.)

Nonfulfillment of Treaty Stipulations.

The stipulations of the treaty of 1866, concerning the Chickasaw freedmen, have never been fulfilled nor carried out. The action of both parties to that treaty, the United States and the Chickasaw Nation, can best be shown by the acts passed by the Congress of the United States and by the Chickasaw legislature. It must be remembered that the Chickasaw freedmen had no voice in the making of the treaty of 1866, and were in no wise represented in the making thereof, except as their interests may have been looked after by the United States.

Action by the Chickasaw Legislature.

November 9, 1866, the Chickasaw legislature passed an act declaring it to be the unanimous desire of the legislature that the United States hold the share of the Chickasaw Nation in the $300,000, stipulated for the cession of the "Leased district," for the benefit of the Chickasaw freedmen, and remove them beyond the limits of the Chickasaw Nation according to the third article of the treaty of 1866.

In 1868, similar action was taken by the Chickasaw legislature asking for the removal, by the United States, of the Chickasaw freedmen from the Chickasaw country.

January 10, 1873, the Chickasaw legislature passed an act entitled “An act to adopt the negroes of the Chickasaw Nation, etc." That act was submitted by the governor of the Chickasaw Nation, by letter of the same date, to the President of the United States, and was submitted by the Secretary of the Interior to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, on February 10, 1873, with recommendation for appropriate legislation for extending the time for the execution of the third article of the treaty. The papers were referred to the Committee on Freedmen Affairs, but no action thereon was had. (See Annual Report Indian Office, 1882, p. 57; and H. R. Ex. Doc. 207, Forty-second Congress, third session.)

October 18, 1876, the Chickasaw legislature adopted a resolution providing for a commission to confer with a like Choctaw commission, looking to the agreement upon some plan for removing and keeping the freedmen from the Choctaw and Chickasaw country (Chickasaw laws, 1878, p. 148).

February 17, 1877, the Chickasaw legislature passed an act entitled “An act confirming the treaty of 1866." In section 3 thereof, "the United States are requested to remove the said negroes beyond the limits of the Chickasaw Nation according to the requirements of the third article of the treaty of April 28, 1866" (Chickasaw laws, 1890, p. 121).

October 4, 1887, the Chickasaw legislature passed the following:

And, whereas, the Chickasaw people have kindly and friendly feeling toward the freedmen, their former slaves, and wishing them to receive full valuation of the places they live upon, for their support, as provided for in section 4 of the treaty of 1866, do hereby agree that they shall have two years from the passage of this act to sell their improvements in the Chickasaw Nation to the best advantage, that no loss may accrue to them: Therefore,

Be it resolved by the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation, That the Nation shall refund to the United States the sum of $55,000 to be used in removing the freedmen in the Chickasaw Nation to their new home as provided under the third and fourth articles of the treaty of 1866, made between the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians. (See Sen. Ex. Doc. 166, Fiftieth Congress, first session.)


The Chickasaw legislature had previously, on October 22, 1885, passed an act rejecting the adoption of the Freedmen of the Chickasaw Nation (Chickasaw laws, 1890, p. 171).

Action by the Congress of the United States.

In the Indian appropriation act of May 17, 1882, the following provision of law was enacted by Congress:

That the sum of ten thousand dollars is hereby appropriated out of the three hundred thousand dollars reserved by the third article of the treaty with the Choctaws and Chickasaws concluded April 8 (?), 1866, for the purpose of educating freedmen in said tribes, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, three-fourths thereof for the freedmen among the Choctaws, and one-fourth for the freedmen among the Chickasaws; Provided, That said sum of ten thousand dollars shall be deducted in like proportion from any moneys in this act appropriated to be paid said Choctaws and Chickasaws; And provided further, That either of said tribes may, before such expenditure, adopt and provide for the freedmen in said tribe in accordance with said third article, and in such case the money herein provided for such education in said tribe shall be paid over to said tribe, to be taken from the unpaid balance of the three hundred thousand dollars due said tribe (22 Stat., 72).

(Under and subsequent to the foregoing provision of law the Choctaw national legislature passed an act adopting the freedmen of the Choctaw Nation.)

In the Indian appropriation act passed by Congress, August 15, 1894 (Public No. 197, p. 56), the following is contained:

Sec. 18. That the approval of Congress is hereby given to "An act to adopt the negroes of the Chickasaw Nation" and so forth, passed by the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation and approved by the governor thereof, January 10, 1873, particularly as set forth in a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting to Congress a copy of the aforesaid act, contained in House Executive Document numbered two hundred and seven, Forty-second Congress, third session.

What effect, if any, this action by Congress will have upon the status of the Chickasaw freedmen, in view of the subsequent action of the Chickasaw legislature, directly the reverse of its action in the said act of Jan. 10, 1873, is a problem for future solution. It is at least encouraging to the Chickasaw freedmen, nothwithstanding it seems to be confusing an already badly confounded matter. It indicates a desire on the part of the Congress of the United States to do something to carry out its pledges on behalf of the Chickasaw freedmen; and we feel sure that any proper and feasible plan for their relief that shall be formulated and presented by you for the consideration of Congress will receive consideration and action by that body.

Action by the Chickasaw Freedmen.

The Chickasaw freedmen have waited many long and weary years for the
settlement of their status, and the adjustment of their rights, privileges, immun-
ities, claims, etc., so that they might have some security in the enjoyment of the
fruits of their labors, educate their children, and surround themselves and their
homes with some of the comforts of civilization. From time to time they have
memorialized the United States, and laid their grievances before such officers
thereof as they could reach, and who would hear them.

When the Chickasaw legislature passed the act of 1866 against the adoption of the Chickasaw freedmen, the latter, by a petition, represented to the United States the bitter feeling existing against them among the Chickasaws, and stated their anxiety to leave the Chickasaw country, and that they would settle on any land that might be designated for them by the United States; and they asked that transportation to such designated land be provided for themselves and families, and that they be furnished with supplies sufficient to enable them to make a start in their new homes.

No attention was given to this petition.

A similar petition was presented on June 10, 1868, which was laid before Congress, but no action was taken thereon (see Senate Ex. Doc. 82, Fortieth Congress, second session).


In February, 1869, a delegation of the freedmen went to Washington and there submitted a memorial urging the fulfillment by the United States of the treaty stipulations.

Nothing was accomplished by this mission.

Complaints were presented from time to time, of the denial of rights, privileges, etc., to the freedmen by the Chickasaws; that their children were growing up in ignorance, and that they were all in great distress and poverty; but no action for our relief was taken, except, as shown herein before, in the act of Congress of 1882; and that extended only for the one year, and only for the education of our children, to the extent of $2,500. With that exception, our children, growing up in the very midst of the most advanced civilization of the age, have been absolutely with no greater advantages for their education than if they were living in the very heart of the "Dark Continent."

Condition and Trials of the Chickasaw Freedmen.

From and after the ratification of the treaty of 1866, the condition of the Chickasaw freedmen has frequently been made the subject of investigation and report by officials of the United States. The results of these investigations can be ascertained by reference to the special reports, in the proper archives of the United States Government.

The annual reports of the United States Indian agents having charge of the Chickasaw Indians, as well as the annual reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, as will be found by reference to the published volumes thereof, have year after year represented the wretched and deplorable condition of these Chickasaw freedmen; and have urged such appropriate and necessary legislation as the facts and circumstances from time to time seemed to them to require and warrant, to afford the proper relief.

In his annual reports for 1869 and 1870, the United States Indian agent, George T. Olmstead, captain, United States Army, strongly urged the necessity for the settlement of the status of the Chickasaw freedmen; and he suggested the negotiation of a supplemental treaty, under which they would be fairly settled and established as citizens of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations (see Indian Office Annual Report, 1869, p. 409, and 1870, p. 292.)

United States Indian agent, T. D. Griffith, in his annual reports for the years 1871 and 1872, invites special attention to the condition of the Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen. In the latter report he says:

As they are here now, I cannot encourage them to make permanent improvements; and without them they are but hewers of wood for others. There should also be means provided for the education of their children. They are not able to employ suitable teachers, and the consequence is, many of these children are growing up ignorant, as their fathers were before them. It would cost something to establish a school system for them and carry it on until they could do it themselves, but they will do all in their power to aid, and it will be cheaper to educate them than to allow them to grow up, as they are now growing, in ignorance. (See Indian Office Annual Report, p. 238.)

In his annual report for 1873, United States Indian agent, A. Parsons, stated that:

Some of the freedmen are improving farms and accumulating property. They seem very well satisfied, in all respects, except their uncertainty of their right to vote and the want of any educational opportunities for them. The honorable Secretary of the Interior decided that they clearly had the right to vote, but the disposition of the Chickasaws and Choctaws have been to oppose it, and the freedmen have, therefore, not voted for fear of offending them. The freedmen seem very anxious to have school privileges, and say they will furnish school buildings if by any means teachers and books can be obtained for them. (See Ind. Office Annual Rpt., p. 209.)

Hon. Edward P. Smith, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, states as follows, in his annual report for 1874, page 71:

The negroes who were formerly owned as slaves by the Choctaws and Chickasaws, are in an anomalous condition. They have their freedom, but are without equal rights and privileges. There is no reason in justice or equity why these negroes should not be treated by the Government as a constituent part of these Indian nations, and share with them in all the rights of landed property and educational facilities. They are orderly, industrious, and eager for the education of their children, and yet are obliged to spend their labor upon farms to which they have no title, and which, when once well improved, are not infrequently taken from them. Their children grow up in ignorance in sight of schoolhouses which they may not enter.

Action was strenuously urged upon Congress in the matter by Hon. Hiram Price, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his annual reports for 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884.

Hon. J. D. C. Atkins, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his annual report for 1887, concludes a brief statement of the previous action of the United States with reference to the Chickasaw freedmen, as follows:

During the year several complaints have been received from the freedmen relative to the denial of their rights, and particularly as to the utter lack of educational facilities. Recently Agent Owen held a conference with some of the leading freedmen, at which they expressed a desire to remain in the nation if their rights, especially in the matter of schools, could be accorded them, but signified their willingness to submit to the decision of the Government. The Chickasaw authorities positively refuse to take any steps looking to their adoption, and even refuse to provide for their education. This reluctance to carry out the stipulations of the treaty, is doubtless caused in great measure by the fear that the freedmen will out-vote the Chickasaws, they being fully as numerous as the Indians. These people, therefore, whose rights, protection and education were guaranteed by treaty, are left in ignorance, without civil or political rights, and with no hope of improvement.

Under these circumstances, I believe their removal from the nation is the only practical method by which they can be afforded education and other privileges. It has been decided by Judge Parker, of the district court of the western district of Arkansas, that the United States may settle freedmen belonging to the Five Civilized Tribes upon lands acquired from the Seminoles and Creeks, and Agent Owens suggests that the Chickasaw freedmen be removed to that portion of Oklahoma lying on the Canadian River, and west of the Pottawatomie Reservation.

Many of the freedmen have doubtless made improvements on the lands which they and their fathers had occupied but not possessed; and if, because they can acquire no title thereto, they are forced to abandon these improvements, it would be but sheer justice to pay them the full value thereof, in addition to the $100 per capita which the treaty promised them if they should emigrate.

I have no reason to suppose that the Chickasaws would object to legislation requiring them to return the $55,125 to the United States, provided, by the same legislation, they could be relieved of the presence of their freedmen. Congress has heretofore been asked to enact the necessary legislation for the removal of these freedmen, and in my opinion the recommendation should be renewed. A special report upon the subject with a draft of the necessary legislation will be prepared and submitted for your consideration before the meeting of Congress. (See pp. LXIII and LXIV.)

The foregoing is reiterated in his special report on the subject to the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Wm. F. Vilas, who submitted said report with the draft of the bill, and the detailed and full information accompanying it, to the Congress for its consideration and action, on May 9, 1888. (See Senate Ex. Doc. 166, Fiftieth Congress, first session.)

We will not further weary your patience, nor consume your valuable time with recitals from the published reports of the officers of the United States Government, whose duty it is to present the facts, as to the condition of the Chickasaw freedmen to the attention and consideration of Congress, except to quote from the report of Dew. M. Wisdom, United States Indian agent for 1893, the following:

The status of the freedmen also in the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations is a 'vexed problem.' In the former nation those people have never by any law or statute of that nation been incorporated into its 'body politic.' They do not vote or hold office, and are denied participation in its funds devoted to educational purposes. The negroes are clamorous for schools and for full recognition of their rights as citizens of the nation. Many of them were slaves to Chickasaw masters or owners, and were born upon Chickasaw soil, are well grounded in the customs and usages of that people, and speak the language as fluently as the natives themselves. They predicate their right to citizenship upon article 4 of the treaty of 1866, and upon the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This class of citizens, it is said, exceed in number the native population, and the Chickasaws in defense of their denial to them of the rights of citizenship assert that if the negroes were made citizens they would take charge of the Government and convert it into another Hayti. Doubtless this fear has controlled their course toward them; but nevertheless the condition of the negro is one to be deplored, and it would seem to be difficult to mitigate or remedy, and I have felt it my duty to suggest their condition to the Indian Bureau, without further amplification in the way of details. (See Indian Office Annual Report, 1893, p. 145.)

When we look at the condition of the Creek and Seminole nations, with their large preponderance of persons of African descent and blood, admitted by their treaties of 1866 to full membership into those nations, with equal rights in the nation's funds, domain or other estate, and behold the peace and prosperity within their borders, we must insist that the fears of the Chickasaws that the full adoption of the Chickasaw freedmen as Chickasaw citizens, with the right to share in the national estate, in whatever character or form it exists, will be detrimental to the welfare and interests of the Chickasaw Nation are not well founded. Some other reason must be found for their excuse for denying to the Chickasaw freedmen their just rights, privileges and claims. Whether that reason be selfishness or unwillingness to accord that justice and equity to their freedmen that they insist for themselves from the United States or otherwise, is left to those who must pass in judgment upon these matters to determine.

Under a resolution of the Senate, March 29, 1894, the committee on the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians, of which Hon. H. M. Teller is chairman, visited the Indian Territory "to inquire into the present condition of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians, and the white citizens dwelling among them, and the legislation required and appropriate to meet the needs and welfare of such Indians."

While this resolution did not in terms authorize an inquiry as to that class of persons who are neither Indians or white citizens, a class of persons left by Congress in 1866 without defined rights, and with no certain status, and whose condition and existence have been almost continuously ignored during the past twenty-eight years, the committee thought proper to bring to the attention of Congress the following:

The Indians maintain schools for their own children. The Choctaws, Cherokees and Creeks maintain schools for the children of recognized colored citizens, but the Chickasaws have denied to these freedmen not only the right of suffrage, especially provided for in the treaty of 1886, but have also denied the children of freedmen the right to participate in their schools. We find in the Chickasaw country a freedman population somewhat in excess of that of the Indian population, not only deprived of citizenship, but denied the privileges of schools, so that the children of that class are growing up in ignorance, except in a few cases where schools have been maintained by individual means for the education of the freedmen children. This is a plain and open violation of the treaty of 1866.

The committee might have added further that this condition had existed since the making of the treaty of 1866. However, the committee did not complete its work, for it concluded its report as follows:

As the matters submitted are so complicated and of such grave importance, the committee has thought proper to submit this preliminary report, and hopes, upon further investigation, to be able to make such further and more specific recommendation as to necessary legislation as will lead to a satisfactory solution of this difficult question. (See Senate Report No. 377, Fifty-third Congress, second session.)

This promise of prospective legislation holds out to us a gleam of hope, especially when the standing of the men making the report is considered.

It remains for your commission to present to the Congress some feasible plan of legislation for correcting the existing evils, to secure early legislation on the subject.

Such is our condition as officially reported by the constituted authorities of the United States. We are willing to let it pass without any further amplification. We might add material evidences and facts that would more strongly represent our real situation; but we do not desire even to seem to exaggerate our wrongs, distress and embarrassments.

Surely we will not be left much longer in our deplorable situation.

Had we existed under such wrongs and hardships in any other land, we believe that our cries for relief would ere this have been heard by the sympathetic and liberty-loving people of this country; and we would not only have had their pity, and their benevolence reached out to lift us out of our degredation and distress. but such influence in our behalf would have been exerted that the good offices of this great Government would have interposed for the amelioration of our condition long ere this.

We are prone to believe that had our cries of distress come from some distant island of the sea, instead of from the midst of an Indian tribe right here in the United States, the power and influence of the Government of the United States would have been exerted to extricate us from our bondage and barbarism. 

Many have died in the midst of great sufferings while waiting and hoping for deliverance; they are now past relief here; others survive, suffer and hope, having grown up in ignorance, and without the comforts of the civilization that surrounds them, and whose benefits they have longed for; others, still, are growing up to manhood and womanhood, and unless relief soon comes to us another generation must bear through life the blight of wrong and injustice which were inflicted upon their fathers and mothers.

Full and adequate remedy can never be provided. But the measure of relief to the living, and especially to the rising generation, should be as commensurate with the evils endured as it is possible to afford after the lapse of so great a time.

Failure of Congress to Enact Proposed Legislation for Fulfillment of Treaty Stipulations, and for Relief of Choctaw and Chickasaw Freedmen.

The necessity for legislative action in the matter of the Chickasaw freedmen has been laid before Congress at various times, by the Executive Department of the Government, always urging speedy action, and sometimes submitting drafts of proposed legislation, which the condition, circumstances, justice, and equity of their case seemed to demand.

The efforts in this direction, to some extent, are shown by the contents of various Congressional documents on the subject, some of which are here briefly set forth:

Senate Ex. Doc. No. 82, Fortieth Congress, second session, contains a petition from delegates of the Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen, stating the failure of their adoption by the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, and asking that the $300,000, stipulated in the treaty to be held for their benefit, be so used; and that they be removed from the Choctaw and Chickasaw country. This petition, with other papers, was submitted to Congress, with a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. O. H. Browning, dated July 20, 1868, informing that body of the terms of the treaty as to the freedmen; that the two years within which the legislatures of the nations should act had expired, and the freedmen had not been adopted; and that the duty of their removal, consequently, devolved upon the United States as a treaty obligation; but as no place had been designated to which they should be removed, and no funds provided, by treaty or otherwise, to defray the expenses of removal, no action could be taken until Congress should enact the necessary legislation for carrying the treaty into effect. Early attention was earnestly invited to the subject. Congress did not heed this appeal; and no place was designated, and no funds were provided for the removal of the freedmen in fulfillment of the treaty obligations.

The Executive Document H. R. No. 207, Forty-second Congress, second session, contains the act of the Chickasaw legislature, of January 10, 1873, providing for the adoption of the Chickasaw freedmen. This was submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, concurring in the recommendation of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that necessary and appropriate legislation, suggested in the correspondence, be enacted.


It is remarkable that Congress, with such an opportunity for doing something in the matter, neglected to use it, and took no action on that enactment of the Chickasaw legislature for the adoption of their freedmen, from 1873 till 1894, a period of over twenty-one years, during which the Chickasaw legislature had, by several acts passed at different times, taken action directly the reverse of that contained in the act of 1873. By a provision in the Indian appropriation act of August 15, 1894, Congress gave its approval to the Chickasaw act of 1873, as hereinbefore set forth. This may involve the Chickasaw freedmen in a more doubtful status, which they fear not only will not be solved to their advantage, but will, on the other hand, serve to protract the delay in securing effective legislation for their relief.

The Executive Document, H. R. No. 212, Forty-third Congress, first session, contains the draft of a bill submitted to Congress by Acting Secretary of the Interior B. R. Cowan, by his letter of April 4, 1874, wherein he urged its adoption for the relief of the Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen.

That proposed legislation recites, so far as, necessary for its purpose, the provisions of the treaty of 1866: states the failure of fulfillment thereof; that the freedmen were then anxious to remain in the Choctaw and Chickasaw country and to become incorporated as citizens thereof; and it provided—

That all persons of African descent who were resident in the territory of the Choctaw or Chickasaw nations on the 28th day of April, A. D. 1866, and who had before that been held in slavery among said nations, or either of them, and all the descendants of such persons, shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nations, respectively, and the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by or belonging to said nations, respectively.

The further provisions of said proposed legislation provided for disposing of the $300,000 held under the treaty of 1866, and for carrying the measure into effect.

In urging Congress to take that action, the Acting Secretary, Mr. Cowan, said:

Almost eight years have passed since the ratification of the treaty above referred to, and the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations have not enacted any laws, rules, and regulations in behalf of the persons of African descent above referred to.

The ancestors of these negroes came to the Indian Territory with the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations from the State of Mississippi, and have been with them continuously since that time in the capacity of slaves. They were freed by the treaty of 1866, and have been since enjoying the privileges of freedom. They are reported to be industrious, sober, and frugal people, desirous to learn, anxious to secure to themselves homes in severalty, and, above all, anxious to remain in the country where they now live, and which is the only home they have ever known. And, so far as the Department has been able to ascertain, none of them will ever leave that country voluntarily. They have formed strong attachments to the soil; they have acquired, as far as the peculiar laws and regulations governing the Indian nations will permit, homesteads, and have cultivated farms. A strong prejudice seems to exist against these freedmen on the part of the Choctaws and the Chickasaws, which will account in some measure for the failure of these nations to provide by law for the division among them of the lands of the nations.

The Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee nations have each adopted the freedmen into their tribes, and given them equal rights and privileges with other citizens of the nation. The Choctaws and Chickasaws, I understand, have refused to do so. The condition of these negroes strongly appeals to the United States Government for some action that will fix their status, and give them all that they are entitled to by the terms of the treaty above quoted.

I have the honor to submit herewith the draft of a bill which in my judgment will secure to these freedmen all the rights and privileges to which they are entitled under the treaty. The bill also gives them the right of suffrage, and an equal share in the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by or belonging to said nations, respectively. While this may not be exactly in accordance with the letter of the treaty, I am satisfied that it is simply a matter of justice to this class of persons who have always been residents of said nations and who are now industrious, law abiding, and useful citizens thereof.


I respectfully invite the attention of Congress to this subject and trust that it may receive favorable consideration.

The legislation thus proposed met with the opposition of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, who have always been able to have near the Capitol of the United States, especially during the sessions of Congress, duly accredited representatives, to watch legislation, and to otherwise look out for the interests of said nations respectively. It is not complained that this is so. It is right that they should take care of their affairs. But if the Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen had been possessed of a small portion of the wealth that their years of unrequited toil had secured to the Choctaw and Chickasaw people, they too would have had active and energetic representatives present to intelligently press these measures for their relief.

As usual, the cause of the freedmen was strongly espoused by the executive branch of the Government. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs sent the objections to the proposed bill, made by the representatives of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, to the Secretary of the Interior, for the report of his views thereon. His report is contained in Senate Mis. Doc. No. 118, Forty-third Congress, first session, wherein, after setting forth the then condition of the freedmen, Secretary C. Delano expressed his views vigorously and forcibly, as follows:

Now for the facts. Neither the Choctaw nor the Chickasaw nations have secured to said persons of African descent the rights, privileges and immunities, including the right of suffrage, provided for in treaty. The United States has not removed any persons of African descent, because such persons are so identified by marriage and customs with said nations as to be unwilling to break up their homes and go elsewhere.

The $300,000 has not been invested nor paid to the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations; and the said persons of African descent, who are the most industrious and useful portion of the population of each nation, are without the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens, without the right of suffrage, without land, and without money, and with a disinclination, under all these painful embarrassments, to leave their homes, friends, and relatives and go elsewhere, for the pitiful sum of $100 per capita. They are as meritorious, to say the least, as the average Choctaw and Chickasaw population. They have probably done as much toward securing the wealth possessed by said nations, per capita, as the average Choctaw and Chickasaw population. Under these circumstances their condition is not simply anomalous; it is unjustifiable, oppressive, and wrong, and ought to be remedied.

Now for the provisions of the bill. It provides that the persons of African descent, before alluded to, shall have all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nations, respectively, and in the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by or belonging to said nations, respectively. Is this wrong? The Choctaw and Chickasaw nations are under treaty obligations to secure these people the rights, privileges, and immunities, of citizens, including the right of suffrage. They ought to have done so long since. Their failure to do so is a great wrong, and a great injustice, which should be speedily corrected. But ought these people to have an equal right in the annuities and public domain of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations? Let us see. The present annuity fund of these nations amounts to about $100 per capita. The United States, by the treaty aforesaid, secured to these persons of African descent, under certain conditions, $100 per capita, and that is about what the $300,000 amounts to.

By the second section of the bill objected to, this $300,000 is to be invested and paid in trust for the use and Lenefit of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, so that these persons of African descent will bring to the trust fund of said nations a sum per capita equal to the amount per capita of the present annuity trust fund of these nations.

This, it seems to me, answers satisfactorily the objections to the bill so far as it relates to the rights of the Africans in the annuity funds of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations.

But the bill also gives to these Africans an equal right in the public domain claimed by said nations. Is this wrong? Lands are not held in severalty by these nations; they are held in common. The treaty contemplated making the Africans citizens, with equal rights and privileges with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and upon this principle, in justice and equity, the common property of the nations should belong as much to the Africans made citizens, as to the native-born citizens of said nations.

The argument against this provision, drawn from a pretended analogy between this case and the case of the liberated slaves of the United States, does not rest upon a solid foundation. The liberated slaves of the United States did not become entitled to the property held by individual citizens of the United States, in severalty, but so much of the public domain and other property of the United States as was not the separate property of individuals. These liberated slaves, when they became citizens, did become entitled to equal rights and privileges as other American citizens.

If you look at the manner in which the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations acquired their property, and if you consider that the improvements made thereon have been made by the labor of the African people, in as large, if not larger proportion, than by the labor of native Choctaws and Chickasaws, you will see that there is not any injustice in giving to these persons of African descent, made free and made citizens, equal rights in all respects with native Choctaw and Chickasaw people.

A failure to pass this bill will leave the treaty of 1866 unexecuted; will continue the African people among the Choctaws and Chickasaws in their present unjust and disastrous situation; will preserve the strife, animosity, and disturbance incident to their relations, and therefore I cannot too earnestly or too urgently recommend the passage of the bill during the present session of Congress.

I beg your careful and attentive consideration of this subject, and hope you will bring it before such of your colleagues as feel an interest in the welfare of these people, and that if you concur with me in this opinion you will endeavor to secure the passage of the measure referred to immediately.

This clear and forcible exposition of the justice of the then pending measure shows how strongly the executive branch of the Government of the United States has become convinced of the great injustice brought upon the Chickasaw freedmen by the ratification of the treaty of 1866.

The presence of active and energetic agents representing the Chickasaw Nation before the committees of Congress, and the absence of any such representatives of the freedmen, may account for the failure of enactment by Congress of that or some other remedial legislation for the fulfillment of the treaty stipulations as to the Chickasaw freedmen, and for securing to them the rights in the estate of the Chickasaw Nation to which they are so justly entitled.

The Senate Ex. Doc. No. 166, Fiftieth Congress, first session, contains another effort to secure legislation for the relief of the Chickasaw freedmen. That is the measure drawn under the direction of Hon. J. D. C. Atkins, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, providing for their removal to the Oklahoma district, the appraisement of and payment for their improvements before removal, and the payment to them of a per capita distribution of money to enable them to make a start in their new homes. That measure was submitted to Congress by Hon. Wm. F. Vilas, Secretary of the Interior, as herein before shown, but, like all other appeals and measures presented to Congress for the relief of the Chickasaw freedmen, or even for carrying out the stipulations of the treaty which secured to them such limited, base, and indifferent rights, privileges and immunities it bore no fruit whatever.

It is thus seen that Congress has taken no action for the fulfillment of its treaty obligations on behalf of the Chickasaw freedmen, nor adopted any measures for their permanent relief, notwithstanding the urgent requests made therefor by the Executive branch of the Government as above shown.

As late as the administration of President Harrison, Congress was appealed to for remedial legislation in their behalf, as will hereafter appear, but it failed to embrace the opportunity then presented to accomplish something for their relief.

The Duty of the United States to Secure Not Only Freedom but Justice to the Former Slaves of the Five Civilized Tribes.

Justice I. C. Parker, in the case of United States v. D. L. Payne, tried in the United States district court for the western district of Arkansas, in the May term, 1881, referring to the right of the Government to locate freedmen in the country ceded by the Seminole Nation by treaty of 1866, containing the language "In compliance with the desire to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon," says:


We find that colored people were held in slavery in all the civilized tribes of the Indian Territory. Slavery was abolished there as well as elsewhere in the United States by the emancipation proclamation of the President and by the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, adopted the 13th of December, 1865, and such abolition was recognized by these tribes in the several treaties made with them in 1866.

The Government was desirous of protecting these freedmen and of securing them homes. It was not known how well the several tribes who had held them in slavery would observe their pledges to secure them the same rights they enjoyed. It was feared that prejudice growing out of their former condition as slaves and of race would be so strong against them that they would not be protected by the Indians. The Government had given them the boon of freedom, and it was in duty bound to secure it, in all that the term implied, to them.

That this duty would ultimately be fully performed by the United States, notwithstanding the long delay of year after year, the Chickasaw freedmen confidently hoped and believed, and they confidently hoped and believed that reparation would be made as far as possible for the damage and injury suffered during the long years of waiting.

There has not only been delay and neglect on the part of the United States in the performance of its clear duty toward the Chickasaw freedmen, but there has been absolute injustice and great damage to them in what has been done.

Who is Responsible for the Unjust Treaty Discrimination Against the Chickasaw Freedmen?

The Chickasaw freedmen had no voice in the making of the reconstruction treaty of 1866 with the Choctaws and Chickasaws. They had just been relieved from the bondage of slavery, as the result of the war of the rebellion. Their interests and welfare are wholly and absolutely in the keeping and power of the United States. For whatever they received, whether of good or evil, the United States must have the credit or bear the blame.

The time to have settled forever their status was when the treaty of 1866 was negotiated.

The treaty rights of those nations had been forfeited. They were seeking their restoration. Justice and right should then have been insisted upon for the freedmen. No treaty should have been concluded that did not secure to the freedmen the fullest rights that they were justly entitled to. The failure to do what should then have been done has not only entailed untold hardships and misery upon the Chickasaw freedmen that no legislation can ever fully remedy, but this problem so left unsolved, and the protracted delay, and the aggregated neglect to define, fix, settle, and establish the status and rights of the Chickasaw freedmen have made a dark page on the history of the United States.

The United States entered upon the negotiations for re-establishing the treaty relations with the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, and the Choctaws and Chickasaws, comprising the Five Civilized Tribes, with the right purpose in view, and upon just principles. The commission charged with the preliminary negotiations went to their duty with the distinct instructions that such treaties must contain seven distinct stipulations; the third of these stipulations, which they presented to each tribe, read as follows:

The institution of slavery, which has existed among several of the tribes, must be forthwith abolished, and measures taken for the unconditional emancipation of all persons held in bondage, and for their incorporation into the tribes on an equal footing with the original members, or suitably provided for. (See Annual Report Indian Office, 1865, pp. 298, 320, etc., and H. R. Report No. 3147, Fifty-first Congress, first session, p. 11.)

The Chickasaw delegates, at least those representing the element in that nation that had remained loyal to the United States, expressed their assent to that proposition without change or qualification.

That the United States did not insist upon engrafting that stipulation into the treaty of 1866, that was finally concluded, has been a cause no less of wonder than of trouble and distress.

The provisions on the subject that were incorporated in that treaty show great skill in the methods of negotiation, and high attainments in the art of diplomacy, on the part of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations and the learned counsel they employed and paid so well for assisting them in conducting those negotiations.

What was stipulated was shown by the second, third and fourth articles of that treaty. The adoption of the freedmen was left optional with the Choctaw and Chickasaw legislatures. If they did not adopt the freedmen within two years from date of the ratification of the treaty, the United States were to remove them elsewhere, pay each $100, etc.

The promise was little; the performance has been nothing by either party to the treaty.

Let us see what was accomplished for the freedmen of the other tribes among which slavery had existed.

In the treaty of 1866 with the Creeks, this provision is made:

Art. II. The Creeks hereby covenant and agree, that henceforth neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted in accordance with laws applicable to all members of said tribe, shall ever exist in said nation; and inasmuch as there are among the Creeks many persons of African descent who have no interest in the soil, it is stipulated that hereafter those persons lawfully residing in said Creek country under their laws and usages, or who have been thus resident in said country, and may return within one year from the ratification of this treaty, and their descendants and such others of the same race as may be permitted by the laws of said nation to settle within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Creek Nation as citizens (thereof) shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges of native citizens, including an equal interest in the soil and national funds, and the laws of said nation shall be equally binding upon and give equal protection to all such persons and all others, of whatsoever race or color, who may be adopted as citizens or members of said tribe. (14 Stat., 786.)

In the treaty of 1866 with the Seminoles, article 2 is to the same effect. (14 Stat., 756.)

In the Cherokee treaty of 1866 a right to occupy and improve the land, and "all the rights of native Cherokees" are accorded to the Cherokee freedmen and certain other free colored persons, by articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. (14 Stat., 800.)

When it is thus seen how fully the former slaves of the Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee nations were adopted as citizens of those nations, with equality of rights of other members by blood of those nations, in the respective national estates, it is past understanding why the same measure of justice was not insisted upon by the. United States for the freedmen of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations.

The status of the former slaves of the Indian tribes, among which slavery existed, after their liberation as a result of the war of the rebellion, was not in many respects analogous to that of the liberated slaves of the other sections of the country. The latter were made citizens of the United States, and the States in which they resided, by amendment to the Constitution. They became thereby owners in common, with equal rights and interests, with all other citizens of the United States, in all of the common property of the United States; and with the citizens of their respective States, of the common property of said States, and became entitled to full and equal enjoyment of all benefits and advantages derived therefrom.

If the land and other property in the States had been held in common by the citizens thereof, instead of in severalty, as was and is the case, the former slaves and newly made citizens would have become entitled to a pro rata share thereof according to their numbers.

As the land, invested funds, annuities, and other moneys belonging to or claimed by the Chickasaw Nation and constituting the estate of said nation were as they are yet-held in common by the citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, the former slaves of the Chickasaw Indians, when liberated as a consequence of the war of the rebellion, should have been recognized at once as Chickasaws in all respects, and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nation, and also including the right to share equally with the citizens of said nation in the annuities and other moneys and public domain belonging to or claimed by said nation. If this was not right and just, why was it required of the Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees, of the Five Civilized Tribes, as herein before set forth?


 

Had the latter nations been more disloyal to the United States than the Choctaws and Chickasaws? Or were the former slaves of the latter less deserving than those of the other nations? Certainly the unjust discrimination against the Chickasaw freedmen cannot be justified on these accounts.

The Power of Congress to Remedy Treaty Wrongs by Legislation.

It is in the power of the United States, through Congress, to remedy the wrongs brought upon the Choctaw freedmen by the unjust treaty of 1866.

"Under the Constitution, treaties as well as statutes are the law of the land; both the one and the other, when not inconsistent with the Constitution, stand upon the same level, and being of equal force and validity; and as in the case of all laws emanating from an equal authority, the earlier in date yields to the later." (Op. of Att'y Gen'l U. S., Dec. 15, 1870, 13 Op., 354.)

"A treaty may supersede a prior act of congress (Foster and Elam v. Neilson, 2 Peters, 314) and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty (Tailor v. Morton, 2 Curt., 454; The Clinton Bridge, 1 Walworth, 155). In the cases referred to, these principles were applied to treaties with foreign nations. Treaties with Indian nations within the jurisdiction of the United States, whatever considerations of humanity and good faith may be involyed and require their faithful observance, cannot be more obligatory. They have no higher sanctity, and no greater inviolability or immunity from legislative invasion can be claimed. The consequences in all such cases give rise to questions which must be met by the political department of the Government. They are beyond the sphere of judicial cognizance." (The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 616.)

"In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal." (Head-money cases, 112 U. S., 580; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190; Chinese exclusion cases, 130 U. S., 581.)

The Chickasaw freedmen have no redress for the evils brought upon them by the treaty of 1866, and no remedy for the wrongs they have consequently suffered thereunder, except through legislation by Congress.

While no more treaties are made with the Indian tribes of the country by the treaty-making power of this Government, agreements are entered into between the United States and said tribes, which, if acceptable, are ratified by acts of Congress, and become the law of the land. Your Commissions can, if the Chickasaws are willing, negotiate an agreement with them for our relief. If this cannot be accomplished to the satisfaction of all parties, then we ask that you formulate and propose to Congress such legislation as you may be able to recommend for our relief, and for fixing and defining our status, taking into your careful consideration the requests herein presented.

The Choctaw and Chickasaw Claim for Additional Compensation for the "Leased District" Lands, and President Harrison's Appeal for Using a Portion of the Money for the Freedmen.

It is well known that the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians asserted claim to further compensation to the land known as the "leased district," ceded by the treaty of 1866 to the United States, claiming that the cession made by that treaty was only for the purpose of locating other Indians and freedmen on said lands, and that if other disposition be made of said lands by the United States, they should have further compensation therefor.

When Congress had under consideration the opening to public settlement of the surplus lands of the Cheyenne and Araphoe Reservations, a portion of which was included in the said "Leased district," it gave full consideration to the claim of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations for further compensation for said land, and finally appropriated the sum of $2,991,450.

President Harrison was not satisfied that the United States were legally or equitably bound to pay the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations anything further for said lands, holding that the treaty of 1866 passed the full title of the Indians to and in said lands.


So fully was he impressed with his belief on the subject he declined to pay over the money to those nations, but resubmitted the matter for the further consideration of Congress, taking occasion, in his special message on the subject, to call attention to the facts that preparations were being made by those nations to distribute that money to the members thereof by blood only, excluding from participation therein the white persons adopted into the tribes, and also the former slaves thereof, and their descendants.

In this latter connection he said:

In view of the fact that the stipulations of the treaty of 1866, in behalf of the freedmen of these tribes, have not, especially in the case of the Chickasaws, been complied with, it would seem that the United States should, in a distribution of this money, have made suitable provision in their behalf. The Chickasaws have steadfastly refused to admit the freedmen to citizenship, as they stipulated to do in the treaty referred to, and their condition in that tribe, and in a lesser degree in the other, strongly calls for the protective intervention of Congress. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 42, Fifty-second Congress, first session, p. 3.)

The matter was further considered by Congress and resulted in a resolution affirming the position already taken by that body as to the justice of the claim of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations.

The money has, accordingly, been paid over by the United States to the credit of the proper authorities of those nations; and it has been by those nations distributed to the members thereof by blood only.

When that claim was first reported upon by the Indian Office, attention was invited to the unfulfilled treaty stipulations as to the Chickasaw freedmen, and it was urged:

"In any adjustment that may be made of this claim the interests of the 
Chickasaw freedmen should be guarded and protected." (See H. R. Report No. 3147, Fifty-first Congress, first session, p. 15.) Congress, however, failed to take any action to guard and protect the interests of the Chickasaw freedmen in its adjustment of the claim as recommended by the Indian Office, or to interpose any protective intervention in behalf of the Chickasaw freedmen in the distribution of the money, as so strongly urged by President Harrison.

The amount already paid is for so much of the "Leased district" as was within the boundaries of Cheyenne and Arapahoe Reservation, opened to public settlement April 19, 1892. The balance of the claim is for so much of the "Leased district" as is within the reservations of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita, etc., Indians, embracing an area of 3,712,503 acres, which, at the same rate of additional compensation $1.05 per acre allowed for the proportion in the Cheyenne and Arapahoe reservations (aggregating nearly $3,000,000), makes the balance of that claim amount to about $3,520,264.65, the allowance and payment of which the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations are seeking from Congress in connection with the ratification of the pending agreements, with the occupying tribes abovenamed, for opening the surplus lands to public settlement.

The nearly $3,000,000 already paid to the Choctaws and Chickasaws in part settlement of their claim may be taken as a recognition, at least, by Congress that the claim is an equitable one, and that full payment will ultimately be made, unless the trust upon which the lands are recognized to be held is applied.

The Chickasaw freedmen received no share of the nearly $3,000,000 heretofore paid, nor have they been participants in anywise in the benefits of said payment. But of that immense sum of money not a schoolhouse was built for the education of the children of the freedmen, now and heretofore growing up in ignorance in the Chickasaw country, and not a cent of it was in any way used to ameliorate and improve the condition or to advance the welfare and interests of the Chickasaw freedmen.

Will Congress pay the balance of the claim and make no provision out of it for the benefit of the Chickasaw freedmen? Will Congress let what seems to be the last opportunity pass without applying some suitable remedy for the wrongs and sufferings of the Chickasaw freedmen at the hands of the Chickasaw Nation?

The claims of the Chickasaw Nation upon the Government of the United States in the matter of this claim are certainly no greater and no more just than are the claims of the Chickasaw freedmen herein presented. If "the protective intervention of Congress," so strongly but vainly urged by President Harrison in behalf of the Chickasaw freedmen, for a share of the payment already made is not interposed in their behalf when the legislation is enacted as to the balance of the claim, then the Chickasaw freedmen can see little hope but to look to the Treasury of the United States alone for redress of their grievances and payment of the claims they have for damages and otherwise resulting to them, not only by reason of failure of fulfillment of treaty stipulations, but by reason of unreasonable and unjust treaty discrimination against them.

Rights of the Chickasaw Freedmen in the "Leased District."

It will be observed that in the third article of the treaty of 1866, by which the Choctaws and Chickasaws ceded "to the United States the territory west of the 98 degree west longitude, know as the leased district," there are no words of express limitation upon the title to said land thus conveyed to the United States.

That cession is unlike the cession made at the same time by the Cherokees, Creeks and Seminoles.

The trust upon which the United States received the lands ceded by these latter nations will be found as follows:

In article 16 of the Cherokee treaty of 1866 (14 Stat., 804). In article 3 of the Creek treaty of 1866 (14 Stat., 786). In article 3 of the Seminole treaty of 1866 (14 Stat., 756).

In the treaties with the Creeks and Seminoles the trust is expressed in these words:

"In compliance with the desire of the United States to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon."

There are no such words in the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty: but those nations were able to satisfy the Congress of the United States, by reference to the records of negotiations and otherwise, that it was the intention of the parties to that treaty that the lands ceded thereby were coupled with the same trust as expressed in the treaties with the Creeks and Seminoles.

The Chickasaw Nation strongly urged this contention, as will appear in the declarations of B. C. Burney and Overton Love, their accomplished and intelligent delegates, in their "memorial of the Chickasaws relating to the President's message of February 17, 1892," presented to Congress February 26, 1892, wherein they said:

The President expresses the opinion that the conditions attached to the cessions in the Creek and Seminole treaties of 1866 were the same as those which were attached to the lease of the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1855, and that, therefore, the claim of the Choctaws that the cession in their latter treaty of 1866 was encumbered by a condition, or trust, is not supported by any analogies of the Creek and Seminole cases. This is a mistake. The trusts created in the Creek and Seminole treaties of 1866 were trust (1) for the location of friendly Indians, in general, without restriction, and (2) for the location of freedmen. Neither of these two trusts were created by the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1855. Neither of them existed, in the case of the leased district, until created by the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1866. The trust created by the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1855 was a trust not to locate Indians in general but to locate certain Indians whose ranges were included within the boundaries designated in the treaty. This treaty of 1855 contained no trust whatever for the location of freedmen. That trust was first created for the leased district by the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1866.

It is true that these two trusts of the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1866 are not created by express words qualifying the grant; but this is also true of the Creek and Seminole treaties. In those treaties the trusts are not expressed. but are implied in words used in recitals only. They are not implied in either of those treaties in words used in the body of the grant. The recital in each case is in the following words: In compliance with the desire of the United States to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon,' etc. The words of the grant are even stronger in the Creek and the Seminole treaties than in the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty. The Choctaws and Chickasaws 'cede;' but the Creeks and Seminoles 'cede and convey.'

These trusts, in the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty of 1866, are implied in the language of the third article, in which the words of conveyance, the statement of consideration, and the arrangements for the freedmen are placed in such juxtaposition as not only to warrant, but to necessitate the inference that it was the object of the parties and the effect of the treaties to authorize the United States to locate upon these lands Indians whose ranges were not embraced within the limits designated in the treaty of 1855, and also to locate Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen thereon, and that the cession was encumbered by corresponding trusts. (See Sen. Mis. Doc. No. 82, Fifty-second Congress, first session.)

The same position had been taken by the Chickasaws in their memorial, presented to Congress March 19, 1890, by B. C. Burney, chairman Chickasaw commission, and J. D. Collins and Overton Love, Chickasaw delegates, wherein they state as follows:

One-fourth of the interest of the Choctaws in the proceeds of the land west of the one hundredth meridian had been acquired by the Chickasaws in the purchase of 1837.

On the 28th day of April, 1886, the Choctaws and Chickasaws, by a treaty of that date, conveyed a trust estate in the lands between the ninety-eighth and one hundredth meridians to the United States. The trust created by this treaty was to remove to and settle on said lands 3,000 Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen, if willing to be removed. These lands thenceforth remained subject to the trust for the settlement of Indian tribes and bands, whose homes and ranges were within certain designated limits, which trust had been created by the lease of 1855, and also subject to this second trust for the settlement of freedmen thereon. But the Choctaws and Chickasaws surrendered and lost by this treaty all right to settle on those lands themselves, which right had been reserved by the lease of 1855. The United States have located upon the lands west of the ninety-eighth meridian a small number of Indians, and have also paid for the emigration thereto of 72 Choctaw freedmen. Whether these freedmen emigrated to said lands, or remained in the Choctaw or Chickasaw district, your memorialists are not advised. (See Senate Mis. Doc. No. 107, Fifty-first Congress, first session).

That contention was settled in favor of the claims of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, as will be seen by the report of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, of which Senator Henry L. Dawes was Chairman, which declared as follows: 

In the message of the President, transmitted to Congress February 17, 1892, he says:

After a somewhat careful examination of the question, I do not believe that the lands for which this money is to be paid were, to quote the language of section 15 of the Indian appropriation bill already set out, ceded in trust by article 3 of treaty between the United States and said Choctaw and Chickasaw nations of Indians, which was concluded April 28, 1866.

The President is of the opinion that the lands in question were not ceded in trust to the United States by this treaty. He thinks that an absolute, unqualified title was conveyed by the treaty, and as he elsewhere says, that the United States paid the Choctaws and Chickasaws therefor the sum of $300,000. On the contrary your committee believe that the estate conveyed was a trust estate only; that whereas the treaty of 1855 empowered the United States to locate upon these lands only those Indians whose ranges were included within certain specified limits, this treaty of 1866 authorized the United States:

(1) To locate upon these lands Indians like the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, whose ranges were not within the limits designated in the treaty of 1855, and whom, prior to the treaty of 1866, the United States had no right to locate upon the lands.

(2) To locate upon the lands Choctaw and Chickasaw freedmen.

(3) Deprived the Choctaws and Chickasaws themselves of the right to settle thereon. (See Senate Report No. 552, Fifty-second Congress, first session, p 11.)

Provision was made for the payment of the portion of the claim then contended for, by the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1025), appropriating the sum of $2,991,450.

There are within the occupancy of the Kiowa and Comanche and the Wichita, etc., Indians 3,712,503 acres, which is the remainder of the "leased district," and the basis of the unsettled portion of the claim of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations for additional compensation.

The statement of these facts and conclusions are here set forth to serve as the basis of an alternate proposition for the settlement of the claims of the Chickasaw freedmen, to be hereinafter stated.

Claims of the Chickasaw Freedmen.

The Chickasaw freedmen claim


Full and Equal Rights, Etc., as Chickasaw Citizens.

They insist that they were justly and equitably entitled to be, and that they should have been invested, by the treaty of 1866, with full and equal rights, privileges, and immunities with the Chickasaw citizens by blood, including the rightof suffrage, the right to equal educational privileges for their children, the right to equal protection under equal and just laws, and the right to share equally in the annuities and other moneys, and in the public domain claimed by and belonging to the Chickasaw Nation, or in which said nation is interested. And that the refusal and denial of the rights so claimed, and the failure and neglect to secure to them said rights, etc., the same as were secured for the freedmen of the Creek and Seminole nations, have been the cause of great damage, loss, and injury to the Chickasaw freedmen, for which they are justly and equitably entitled to indemnification.

The Chickasaw freedmen claim and insist that they be now invested with the full rights, etc., so claimed.

The Chickasaw freedmen claim and insist that they be now indemnified for the damage, loss, and injury sustained and suffered by them from 1866 till they shall be invested with the full rights as Chickasaw citizens, and for the damage, loss, and injury sustained and suffered by them by reason of the denial of said rights and the failure and neglect to secure said rights to them; and also by reason of the failure and neglect of both parties to the treaty of 1866, or either of them, as shall be determined to fulfill and carry out the stipulations for the very limited rights and benefits provided for them thereunder.

The measure of their claim for indemnification for damages, etc., can be ascertained by the statement of an account of the moneys that have come into the possession of the Chickasaw Nation from payment of annuities, licenses, taxes, and other public charges, and from payments for lands, or on any other account: and pro rating the moneys so received between the Chickasaws who received the benefits thereof, and the former slaves of Chickasaws and their descendants.

The amount of the damage, etc., so ascertained, to be paid by the United States directly out of the Treasury, or by the Chickasaw Nation out of its national funds, according as it shall be determined which of the parties are chargeable for such damages, etc.

The funds of the Chickasaw Nation in the custody of the United States, amount to $1,337,695.65 (not including certain permanent treaty provisions for goods), upon which that nation receives annually from the United States as interest the sum of $68,221.44.

Out of the payment of the claim for damages the Chickasaw freedmen desire and propose to provide suitable and sufficient educational facilities for their children, and otherwise improve their condition and surroundings.

The Chickasaw freedmen also desire and claim that when they shall be invested with the full rights, etc., so claimed, the lands occupied by the Chickasaw Nation should be surveyed and sectionized, and that provision be made for title in severalty, at least to the Chickasaw freedmen, for the quantity thereof that they would be severally entitled to have and to hold.

The Chickasaw freedmen claim and insist that the foregoing claims are right, just and equitable; and they insist and urge that said claims be adjusted by an agreement between the United States and the Chickasaw Nation; and that the claim for damages, etc., be speedily paid to and for the Chickasaw freedmen.

Plans for the Adjustment of the Claims of the Chickasaw Freedmen.

We greatly desire that the adjustment of our claims be effected by an agreement between the United States and the Chickasaw Nation. That the adjustment be such as shall be just to both parties, the Chickasaw Nation and the Chickasaw freedmen, and also to the United States. We desire to remain in the land of our birth, among the people with whose language, customs, and habits we are trained and familiar, and whose friendship we desire and esteem, and against whom we have refrained from stating anything in this paper not necessary to a clear presentation of our case.

If, however, it is found impossible to so adjust our said relations and claims, then and in that event we insist and urge that the adjustment be made by the appropriate and necessary legislation by Congress. Both the right and the duty of Congress to do this have been herein before shown.

Another Feasible Method for Adjustment.

If the claims and relations of the Chickasaw freedmen cannot be adjusted on either of the plans above suggested, and it shall be found absolutely necessary for the Chickasaw freedmen to remove from the Chickasaw country, for the public welfare as well as for their own best interests, then, as a dernier resort, we suggest that a sufficient quantity of the surplus lands within the present reservations of the Kiowa and Comanche and Wichita, etc., Indians, which comprise what remains of the "leased district," be set apart and designated as the land for the location for the Chickasaw freedmen, under the treaty of 1866. That the said freedmen be removed to said land at the expense of the United States. That an appropriation be made of a sum sufficient to pay to each of said freedmen entitled thereto, a per capita payment of $100, as provided for in the treaty of 1866, with interest thereon from the date said per capita payment should have been made to the date of the payment thereof. That the quantity of land so set apart and designated for the location of the said freedmen thereon shall contain a sufficient number of acres, which, at the rate of $1.05 per acre, will cover the fair and reasonable amount of damages, loss, and injury sustained and suffered by the Chickasaw freedmen, by reason of the failure and neglect of the parties to the treaty of 1866, to secure to them their just and equitable rights, and the denial, refusal, and neglect of said parties to fulfill the stipulations of that treaty providing for the very limited rights and benefits as therein set forth, and also for the value of the improvements made and put by them on land in the Chickasaw country. That the land so set apart and designated for the location of the Chickasaw freedmen be allotted and patented to them on a fair and just basis, with such limitations and restriction as to alienation, incumbrance, and so forth, as will prevent the disposal thereof of more than one-fourth the first year, one-fourth after the expiration of five years, and with the right to receive title in fee simple for the remainder after the expiration of ten years.

The right of the United States to locate the Chickasaw freedmen on the lands of the "leased district” has been fully set forth in this paper.

Such disposition of the lands of the "leased district," or what remains thereof undisposed of, will serve double purpose of adjusting the Chickasaw freedmen problem, and at the same time dispose of a large part, if not the whole, of the remainder of the claim of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations for additional compensation for said lands.

Finally, we beseech your Commission to consider our case carefully, and mature and put in form some measure for adoption by Congress that will extricate us from our present deplorable and distressed situation, a condition worse than slavery, in which we have been compelled so long to remain, without proper effort for our relief, or remedy for our wrongs.

We hope that your Commission will use the opportunity, while present in the Indian Territory, to acquaint yourselves with all the facts necessary to a full understanding of our claims, our needs, and of the remedies and the measures of relief that right, justice, and equity require to be provided, in order to correct, as far as it can possibly be done at this time, the evils, wrongs, and great injustice under which we have been so long, and are yet, existing.

We hold ourselves in readiness to respond to any demands your Commission may make upon us for facts, information, suggestions, or otherwise, so far as it may be in our power to comply therewith.

Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
Chas. Cohee,
Isaac C. Kemp,
Geo. W. Hall,
Mack Steveson,
Committee of the Chickasaw Freedmen's Association.

R. V. Belt, 1314 Tenth street NW., Washington, D.C.,
J. P. Mullen, Fort Smith, Ark.,
Attorneys and Counselors for the Chickasaw Freedmen Association.