Dumas Brief for Applicants

Search Fold3 for your
Native American Records

Charles von Weise
Attorney at Law

Tishomingo (Muskogee is crossed out) Ind. Ter.

July 12, 1903

I was Principal Law Clerk of the Mississippi Choctaw Legal Department at the time the case of Scott S. Dumas et al. as MCR 4006 was decided and at that time I directed Charles M. Wrigley, one of the law clerks in my dept. to write a decision in said case, but first to prepare a brief of the evidence offered by the applicants for the purpose of proving an attempted compliance on the part of their ancestors. This brief I submitted to Mr. P(?) B. Hopkins, Chief Law Clerk of the Commission, and suggested that it was the opinion of Mr. Wrigley and myself that the applicants had made a fairly good case on the point of an attempted compliance and in our opinion should be given the benefit of a doubt and a decision written in their favor, but that the records failed to show that any persons bearing the names as borne by their ancestors had ever attempted to comply.

My instructions from Mr. Hopkins at that time was to write a decision denying applicants if their ancestors did not appear on the records as having complied or attempted to have complied as the (Dawes) Commission was adverse to identifying parties who could not trace their descent back to someone who had so complied or attempted to comply and had their names of record as having done so. This matter had been submitted just before my leaving for the state of Mississippi on Commission business and I turned the matter over to Mr. Wrigley with instructions to write the decision as suggested by Mr. Hopkins and myself. This was done and upon my return said decision, with a few minor changes made by me (part of which were suggested by Mr. Hopkins), was submitted to the Commission, and as I understand, signed by them (I having left the service prior to said signing).

At the time the matter was submitted to Mr. Hopkins first I took it from his conversation that the Commission did not care to identify these people upon testimony proving an attempted compliance and that if the Department saw fit to overrule the Commission in this view it would be better than for the decision to be written identifying parties in the first instance. The above is about all that I can remember now of any conversation between myself and Mr. Hopkins.  About the same kind in substance was had between myself and Jus. Bixby except that he did not see the brief of the evidence, only taking my statement as to what that was. Mr. W. O. Beall who is, and was then, Chief Clerk of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Enrollment Division never had an official consultation with me in regard to this case but did say this was too a lot of people to let go in on such testimony.

Charles von Weise (signature)

There was a general rumor among those who were writing decisions in Mississippi Choctaw cases at this time that the Commission considered this too large a case to identify on testimony proving attempted compliance where parties were not of record and that a decision denying applicants would be written as it was considered best for the Department to decide that matter.

Charles von Weise (signature)
Second statement

In the Interior Department

Land No. 34990.

Scott S. Dumas et. al., applicants for enrollment as Mississippi Choctaws.

Brief for Applicants

To the Honorable, The Secretary of the Interior, Through the Honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

Counsel signing this brief (to not represent all of the applicants, but as the rights of the applicants are mare or less interlinked it is not thought necessary to specify which of them, are represented by these counsel.

Applicants seek Identification and Enrollment

The applicants in this cause seek identification and enrollment as Mississippi Choctaws. Their descent is from one John Brashear, and his wife, Nancy, nee Black, or Lipsic. These ancestors are named as indicating the strain of blood through which they claim, but the applicants urge their claim specifically through three children of the said John and Nancy Brashear. These children are Lawrence Brashear, Elizabeth Brashear, who married Elhanan W. Dumas, and Keziah, who married. Fleming J. Thompson. It may be remarked here that it appears from the record that the name Brashear is spelled in two or three ways, and the name Keziah is also spelled in two ways. The differences of spelling, however, are only such as customarily take place in the spelling of any family name after the lapse of a few years, or when the members of the family becomes numerous and the descendants scattered. The descent is quite clearly traced from the threw sources above named.

There is only one point in which there seems to be any confusion, and that is with reference to Alexander Brashear, claimed to be the son of Melville F. Brashear, and others applying as descendants of Melville F. Brashear. Melville F. Brashear is declared by his descendants to have been a son of Winchester Dumas and born in 1832. Alexander says that Melville was the oldest son of Winchester. This testimony, which is found at page 74 of the record, seems to conflict with the testimony of Thaddeus and Aurelius, found at pages 65 and 70 of the record, where it is shown that their father, Winchester Dumas was born, in 1805, and married about 1822 or 1893. The testimony is quite reconcilable though, on the theory that Winchester Dumas was twice married, as we think is deducible from the record; but this does not clearly appear, and we have felt it our duty to call attention to this state of the record. John and Nancy had other children than those above mentioned, but it is not necessary to refer to them at this time, as all the applicants claim under those whom we have named. Some reference, however, later in the course of the argument, probably will be made to the names of two of their other, children, as bearing upon the weight to be given to certain testimony.

We have prepared as an appendix to this brief a genealogical table, in which we have shown the descent of all applicants from the three ancestors, Lawrence Brashear, Elizabeth Brashear Dumas, and Keziah Brashear Thompson. We have taken the stocks of several ancestors and traced the families of the applicants. Above the line of descent of many of the applicants we have placed figures. These indicate pages of the record.

We desire that it should be here specially noted that J. P. Dumas, the son of Elhanan and Elizabeth, married his first cousin, M. A. E. Thompson, a daughter of Keziah and Fleming J. Thompson, so that the descendants of these two persons claim: by rights emanating from both these ancestors.

The specific claim made by most of the applicants is that their ancestors attempted to comply with the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830, made at Dancing Rabbit Creek. The record fails to show any compliance upon the part of the ancestor Lawrence Brashear, but there is evidence showing that such compliance was made by Elizabeth Dumas and Keziah Thompson, and, as we conceive, the disposition of this case depends upon the weight that is given to that evidence. As we think, after the long lapse of years since the occurrence took place, its probative force is such that the applicants claiming under Keziah Thompson and Elizabeth Dumas should be enrolled. We shall come to the discussion of the evidence later.

Law Under Which Claim is Made

We are aware that in what we shall say in this and the next section of this brief, we shall be traversing ground which is familiar to this department, but it is necessary to do this, for the orderly presentation of our views, and to bring clearly before the department what we understand to be the rights of applicants, and to show the difficulty of establishing those rights after so many years have passed since the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, and thus to indicate what we believe is the reasonable rule that ought to be applied in the consideration of evidence offered at this time.

The second section of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek is as follows:

“The United States under a grant specially to be made by the President of the United States shall cause to be conveyed to the Choctaw Nation a tract of country west of the Mississippi River, in fee simple, to them and their descendants, to inure to them while they shall exist as a nation, and live on it, * * *** the grant to be executed as soon as the present treaty shall be ratified.”

Here, then, in unequivocal terms, is a grant in fee simple,–a grant to the Choctaw Nation,–the nation as it then existed, and not only this, but to their descendants. It was a grant to the individuals of the nation in their aggregate capacity and to the descendants of those individuals. A nation as such can have no descendants. The descendants are of the individuals, who make up the nation. For the benefit of individuals the grant was originally made; to the benefit of individuals it. should now encore.

This grant, as was recognized by the Dawes Commission in their report of January 28, 1898, was of a territory in common.  That body on page three of that report says: “It is a territory in common, and has been held as such from that day, 1830, till now.  Now, no tenant in common who voluntarily leaves the common property to the occupancy of his co-tenants can ever claim of them any of the fruits of its use.”

This is announcing a well known principle of law; but a principle equally well established, is that no mere absence from the common property forfeits the right of the co-tenants, unless there is a positive, direct and unequivocal repudiation of his title. If it pleases him to remain away from the common land while his co-tenants see fit to remain upon it, they reap the fruits in which he cannot share; but at any time he may return to the common soil, and when he does so he has all the rights of a part owner.

Neither the United States nor the Choctaw Nation has ever repudiated the rights of the Mississippi Choctaws or their descendants, to take up their residence in the ceded territory, and become members of the tribe; but, on the contrary, these rights have always been recognized by both. Acts have been passed by the Choctaw Legislature recognizing the kinship of the Mississippi Choctaws and holding out inducements to them to remove to the Indian Territory, and memorials have been made by the Choctaw Legislature, praying the United States Government to extend assistance to the Mississippi Choctaws to remove to the Indian Territory. We shall not pause at this place to quote these laws or make further reference to them. They are familiar to this department, and we cite attention to them to show a constant recognition on the part of the Choctaw Nation of rights existing, in the Mississippi Choctaws who had never removed to the Indian Territory.

The fourteenth article of the treaty, now to be referred to makes this provision:

“Each Choctaw head of a family being desirous to remain and become a citizen of the states shall be permitted to do so, by signifying his intention to the agent within six months from the ratification of this treaty”

Hence, it was definitely provided in the treaty that any Choctaw who signified his intention to remain might do so. Not only might he remain, but he might become a citizen of the State of Mississippi; and not only of the State of Mississippi, but of any State of the Union. This he might do, and forfeit no right, given by the article quoted above.

To repeat, thus stands the grant:  There was given to the Choctaws making the treaty, and to their descendants, a tract of land west of the Mississippi River; that land went to the tribe, to the Individuals of the tribe as tenants in common, but those who remained did not thus forfeit their right of co-tenancy but retained it, even thought they became citizens of the states.

But we note that is was provided in the fourteenth article that “if they reside upon said lands, intending to become citizens of the states, for five years after the ratification of this treaty, in that case a grant in fee simple shall issue; said reservation shall include the present home of the head of the family or a portion of it. Persons who claim under this article shall not lose the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, but if they ever remove, are not entitled to any portion, of the Choctaw annuity.”

A fact here worthy of consideration is one referred to by the Dawes Commission in their report of January 28, 1898, and we think we cannot do better than to quote it. At page 5, referring to the treaty of 1866, with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, regarding lands in the same territory, they say:

“In this treaty far the first time the possibility of an allotment of these lands in severalty to the members of the tribes at some time in future was recognized. It was therefore provided in this treaty that whenever the tribes desired it, such allotment among their members should take place, and at great detail the manner in which it was to be done was set forth.”

The Commission then quote from the treaty the provision that notice should be given not only in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nation’s, but by publication in newspapers printed in the States of Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama., “to the end that such Choctaws and Chickasaws as yet remain outside of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations may be informed and have opportunity to exercise the rights hereby given to resident Choctaws and Chickasaws.”

The Commission add, “There can be no doubt that this provision was inserted for the special benefit of those claiming to enjoy the rights of a Choctaw citizen under the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830; many of these Choctaws having wandered away from. Mississippi, into the other states mentioned. It was a notice to them that these land’s were about to be allotted members of the tribes, and if they desired to avail themselves of a share in the allotment they must make themselves such by taming from outside and joining their brethren in the common citizenship of the nation.”

There can be no doubt that the framers of the treaty of 1866 had definitely in view, the provisions of the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830. By that treaty it had been provided that so many of the members of the Choctaw tribe as saw fit to do so,-even all, if they so desired;-as has been stated in more than one paper emanating from the Department of Indian Affairs.-might remain and become citizens of the states. By the treaty of 1866, provision was made that all who had remained in accordance with the provisions of that treaty could return and share in the allotment of the land held in common; no matter how great the number,-no matter of what states they had become citizens. The invitation was to return and take advantage of the rights given under the fourteenth article, and to share in the common patrimony secured to them by the treaty of 1830.

How Mississippi Choctaw should File a Claim

This, then, was the status of the Choctaw Indians, as regards lands in the Indian Territory, a the appointment of the Dawes Commission, in 1830. In the act of 1893 nothing was said as to how the Mississippi Choctaws should snake claim of any rights they might have, nor was anything stated with regard to this in the act of 1895, or the act of 1896. But about 1896, a decision was rendered by Judge Clayton, in the case of Jack Amos and some other citizenship cases. (Decisions of United States Courts in Indian Territory on Citizenship Cases, page 459.) The court held that absent Mississippi Choctaws were not entitled to enrollment, but that all Mississippi Choctaws who had removed into the Choctaw Nation, were entitled to enrollment without respect to the quantum of blood.

Following this decision the act of June 7, 1897, was passed. It required the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, “to examine and, report to Congress whether the Mississippi Choctaws under their treaties are not entitled to all the rights of Choctaw citizenship, except an interest in the Choctaw annuities.” Under this law the Commission made their report of January 28, 1898, from which we have quoted above.

The Commission, referring to the clause providing that persons claiming under the fourteenth article, should not lose the privilege of a Choctaw citizen, report their opinion to Congress as follows:

“The Commission are of the opinion that this clause was intended to offer a further inducement to these Indians to follow at some future time their brethren, and join them in their new home, and that the true construction of it is, that the door of admission shall be kept open to them, and if they ever remove, this stay and citizenship in Mississippi shall not bar them out, and that notwithstanding it they shall be admitted to all the privileges of Choctaw citizenship, equally with all others, save only a share in. their annuity.”

The Commission further report:

“It follows, therefore, from this reasoning, as well as from the historical review already recited, and the nature of the title itself, as well as all stipulations concerning it in the treaties between the United States and the Choctaw Nation, that to avail. himself of the privileges of a Choctaw citizen, any person claiming to be a descendant of those Choctaws, who were provided for in the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830, must first show the fact that he is a descendant, and has in good faith joined his brethren in the territory with the intent to become one of the citizens of the nation. Having done so, such person has the right to be enrolled as a Choctaw citizen, and to claim all the privileges of such a citizen, except to a share in the annuities, and that otherwise he cannot claim as a right the privilege of a Choctaw citizen.”

This view met the approbation of Congress and the Choctaw Nation, as is indicated by the laws passed and the supplemental treaty adopted since that time; but with this addition, as we shall presently notice, that the time was extended within which a Mississippi Choctaw could remove into the Indian Territory and secure rights of citizenship and that certain rules of evidence were declared by which the identification of Mississippi Choctaws could he made more easy.

After the report of January, 1898, the Curtis bill was passed in June. (30 Stats. 495.) Section 21 of the act provides:

“Said Commission shall have authority to determine the identity of Choctaw Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under article fourteen of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation, concluded September 27, 1830, and to that end they may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and perform all such other acts necessary thereto, and make report to the Secretary of the Interior.”

Here there is a distinct recognition of legal claim on the part of Choctaw Indians asserting rights under the fourteenth. article. The Commission is made the body to determine who those Indians are. It is constituted a body semi-judicial, at least, with the power of inquiry and determination. No rules for identification are given them. There is simply the recognition that there are claimants under the fourteenth article, who have rights. These rights have already been determined,–already recognized. There remains only the identification of those in whom the rights exist. The right is, when the identity is established, to share in the lands to be allotted.
Following the Curtis act came next the act of May 31, 1900. That act provided that any Mississippi Choctaw duly identified as such by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, should have the right at any time prior to the approval of the final rolls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, by the Secretary of the Interior, to make settlement within the Choctaw and, Chickasaw country. (31 Stats., 170-171.)

More Liberal Provisions

Thus far, we mark from the course of decision an legislation, that since the appointment of the Dawes Commission, there has been a constant widening of the means by which one claiming rights under the fourteenth article of the treaty could establish those rights and secure to himself a portion of the common property. It was first held by that Commission, and by Judge Clayton, that one not already a resident of the territory, was not entitled to an allotment, whereupon an inquiry was instituted as to the rights of persons so claiming. Their rights were declared, and a tribunal was appointed for the identification of such persons, and provision was made that they might have the right to make settlements within the Choctaw country at any time prior to the approval of the final rolls, by the Secretary of the Interior.

As we shall now notice, even more liberal provisions are made under the supplemental treaty for the identification of Mississippi Choctaws. That instrument, referring to applications for identification, as Mississippi Choctaws, says:

“In, the disposition of such applications all full-blood Mississippi Choctaws, and the descendants of any Mississippi Choctaw Indians, whether of full or mixed blood, who received a patent to land under the fourteenth article, of the said treaty or 1830, who had not moved to and made bona fide settlement in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country prior to June 28, 1898, shall be deemed to be Mississippi Choctaws, entitled to benefits under article fourteen of said treaty, of September 27, 1830, and to identification as such by said Commission, but this direction, or provision, shall be deemed to be only a rule of evidence, and shall not be invoked by or operate to the advantage of any applicant who is not a Mississippi Choctaw of the full blood, or who is not the descendant of a Mississippi Choctaw, who has received a patent to land under said treaty, or who is otherwise barred from the right of citizenship in the Choctaw Nation.”

Owing to the necessary perishing of evidence in the course of seven decades, especially evidence going to show that persons had, attempted to comply with the provisions of the fourteenth article of the treaty, under the circumstances by which the Indians were found surrounded, the Commission, of necessity, must lave had great and, in many cases, insuperable difficulty in identifying persons who so claimed, even in cases where the people were of full blood, where their ancestors received a patent, or where their claims were otherwise meritorious. So, in the supplemental, treaty, two rules of evidence were declared: First, that as to Mississippi Choctaws of the full blood, it should be presumed that their ancestors had attempted to comply with article fourteen, and the Commission could enroll them without further proof. Second, that where one could trace his descent from an ancestor who had received a patent as a Mississippi Choctaw, it should be presumed that he was a Mississippi Choctaw, and he should: be entitled to identification without further proof. It might be that some could bring no proof whatever that their ancestors had complied, or made any attempt to comply, with article fourteen, but, at the same time they could show that they were full blood Mississippi Choctaws, and the treaty provides a rule of evidence to the effect that it should he presumed that their ancestors had made such compliance. Others might be able to show that an ancestor received a patent as a Mississippi Choctaw. The treaty provides that without further proof this shall be a sufficient presumption of his being a Mississippi Choctaw to warrant his enrollment.

The law, therefore, stands this way:

The Commission, as heretofore, is authorized to identify Mississippi Choctaws. There are three means of identification. The question is: “Is this man a Mississippi Choctaw, entitled to enrollment?” The answer may be given in one of three ways. First, he may show that he is a Mississippi Choctaw Indian, of the full blood, in which, event no further proof need be made. Second, he may show that he is a descendant of some Mississippi Choctaw Indian, who received a patent, in which event he is entitled to he identified. Third, he may not be able to show either of these things, in which event no rude of evidence is established by the treaty in his behalf, but he is left to such proof as he can make, to show that his ancestors did comply with article fourteen, and according to the preponderance of that proof, is he, or not, entitled to be identified.

The applicants in this cause cannot show that they are full blood Mississippi Choctaw Indians; they cannot show that they claim by lineal descent from any ancestor who received a patent; but they bring evidence which they think shows am attempted compliance on the part of Elizabeth Brashear, wife of Elhanan Dumas, and Keziah Brashear, wife of Fleeting J. Thompson, with the fourteenth article of the treaty. That proof will be considered later. Before its consideration, they desire to refer to a number of documents relating to the history of events following the treaty of 1830, and: concerning the fourteenth article of it. This will indicate why these events are involved in, greater or less obscurity and the difficulties that are necessarily attendant upon showing compliance, or attempted compliance, with that article. This review will show, too, several things tending to establish. the correctness of the evidence of the witnesses upon whose testimony reliance is placed to prove the attempt by Elizabeth and Keziah, to comply with the provisions of the fourteenth article.

 Documentary References

Much will be said in the quotations we shall now make concerning Col. Ward and his method of dealing with the Indians. Wherein the quotations bear upon his conduct, they are not made for the purpose of showing what his general conduct was, or what manner of man he was, for these things are well known to this department.  They are made for the purpose of showing how much was done to render difficult the establishment of even just claims upon the part of those now endeavoring to establish their rights as Mississippi Choctaw.

The Dawes Commission, in a report of date March 10, 1899, with reference to the identification of Mississippi Choctaws, and which appears as appendix No. 7 to their report of September 1st 1899.

“Col. William Ward, Agent of the United States for the Choctaws in Mississippi, at the date of the ratification of said treaty, was authorized to make record of the names of Choctaw heads of families, who desired to declare their intention to remain in Mississippi and become citizens of the states, but this authority did not reach him until late in June, 1831, within about two months of the expiration of the time in which Choctaws were required, or permitted, to make such declaration of their intentions.  This of itself worked almost a total denial to Choctaw citizens of the rights secured to them under the treaty.  And when in connection therewith we take into consideration the condition of the country at that time; the want of means of conveyance and the difficulty of travel over a new country, in which the roads were not the best, and where the streams were not bridged, as also the condition and character of the people who were required to appear before the agent, it can be readily appreciated why the record made by Colonel Ward is so meager and unsatisfactory.

“To all this, however, may be added the fact, well authenticated by the records, the Colonel Ward was a person wholly unfited for this duty.  He was intemperate, insolent and abusive to the Indians, and treated them in such manner as to drive them from him, and thus defeat the purpose of the treaty, which it was his duty to promote.  In numerous cases he refused to make any note of the declarations of Indians who appeared before him.  The government afterwards recognized this injustice to the Choctaws and endeavored to remedy the wrong, by subsequent legislation, in the appointment of other persons to make an investigation before whom the Indians might make proof of their efforts to comply with the treaty, and secure the rights to which they were entitled thereunder.  Such legislation extended from 1833 to 1842 but while only a few years had elapsed since the ratification of the treaty and the expiration of the time given thereunder for the Choctaws to declare their intentions to remain and become citizens of the state, it was found impossible to adjust the claims of beneficiaries and settle their rights with even approximate justice, from which fact it may be at once understood why, at this remote date, it is impossible to trace descendants now bearing English names to ancestors bearing Indian names, upon whom was imposed the duty of complying with the treaty at that time, and to connect persons not living with the fulfillment of the requirements of the provisions of article fourteen of said treaty.  Were this attempted, few, if any, would be able to answer the requirements, but from all the circumstances of the case and the best and clearest information that may be gleaned from the records, it is fair and reasonable to assume that the body, if not in fact the whole of the Choctaw people, who then remained in Mississippi, intended to declare, and under favorable conditions and fair treatment would have declared, their intentions to remain east of the Mississippi River and become citizens of the states.” (Hou. Doc. 56 Congress, Vol 19, page77.)

This conclusion of the Commissioners is abundantly borne out by the original documents.

On May 10, 1836, Mr. Bell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, made the report to Congress concerning land claimed under the fourteenth article of the treaty.  Among other things the Committee reported:

Treaty Ratified

“The treaty was ratified on the 24th Day of February, 1831, and on the 24th day of August following the time limited for making declarations of an intention to take reservations under this article of the treaty expired.  It does not appear that the agent, William Ward, whose duty it was to receive and register these declarations, was advised of the ratification of the treaty, or that he received any instructions in relation to his duty under it, until a communication from the Department of War, bearing date of 21st of May, 1831, reached him at the Choctaw Agency, which would allow less than three months for those who desired to take reservations under this article of the treaty, to signify their intention to do so to the agent.

It does not  appear that the agent received any instructions as to the manner in which he should execute his duty under this article of the treaty, except that he should be carefully in keeping a register of the reservations under it, and that he should transmit a certified copy thereof for the information of the Department of War.  The terms of the treaty were to be his only guide; all besides was left to his discretion.  No further steps appear to have been taken by the Government in the execution of this article of the treaty until June 26, 1833, when George W. Martin was appointed by the President to make the selections and to locate all reservations under the and nineteenth, as well as well the fourteenth, article of the treaty. The locating agent was advised of his appointment, and received his instructions on the fifth of August, following. By the latter he was directed to apply to Colonel Ward, and Captain Armstrong, at the old Agency, for copies of the registers of each class of reservations under the treaty, and to make them the guide of his conduct in assigning and making reservations. Upon application to these gentlemen, of 11th of September, 1831 he was informed that he could not be furnished, with perfect copies of the registers under either article of the treaty. He was, however, supplied with two lists having the appearance of duplicates, one of which was certified by the agent, containing the names of the heads of Choctaw families who had, signified their intention to become citizens and to take reservations under the fourteenth article, but they did not correspond.

Colonel Ward stated that he had transmitted the original register to the Department of War; that he had kept no official copy, and he would not answer for the accuracy of the copies which he furnished at the time.  Captain Armstrong at the same time informed him that these lists were imperfect. The locating agent immediately informed the Department of these facts, and requested copies of the register transmitted to the Department.  On the 8th day of September, the locating agent had received a letter from the Department of War, under date of the 8th of August, 1833, by which he was advised that the President had determined to offer the lands ceded by the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, for sale, on the third Monday, (21st day of October, following,) and, that it would be necessary that the location of the reservations provided for in the treaty should be completed and, entered in the proper land office before that time.

The region of country in which these locations were to be made, extended 350 miles in one direction and, 150 in the transverse direction, and the communications between the different sections of it at that time were difficult and uncertain. There were five distinct land offices, at each of which some portion of these locations were to be noted, viz: Chocchuma, Columbus, Clinton and Augusta, in Mississippi, and Tuscaloosa and, Demopolis, in Alabama. These offices were situated at great distances from, each other, and when it is recollected that the pubic sales were to commence within less than three months from the time at which the locating agent was advised of his appointment, and in less than two months of the time when he was first notified that the lands were to be brought into market, it will appear that the agent could not have complied with the exceptions of the government in completing his duties under the several articles of the treating, granting locations, even if he had been furnished with the registers and other useful information.

But it appears that the locating agent was not furnished with maps or plats of survey of any of the districts or sections of the country, within which it was made his duty to make the numerous locations required by the treaty; and after having waited in vain for copies from the General Land Office, which had been promised him, he was again disappointed in his application to the office of the Surveyor General of the district, and to the several land offices, in the same. Finally, he was informed that he was expected to make such use as he could of the plats in the several registry offices, as his only resource in, this respect. It also appears that no copies of registers returned by Colonel Ward to the War Department were received by the locating agent, until within three days before the commencement of the public sales and even then no copy was received of the register, under the fourteenth article. On the 15th of September the locating agent advised the Department fully of the difficulties which would, under these circumstances, attend the execution of his, duties, in so short a space of time, and he pointed out the great injustice and embarrassments which would arise if no other reservation should, be withheld from sale than such as could be satisfactorily and finally ascertained and located before the sales commenced.

The locating agent, under these circumstances, proceeded to locate the reservations of all such heads of families whose names appeared on the certified list furnished by Colonel Ward, under the fourteenth article of the treaty, and also of those who produced separate certificates of Colonel Ward, that they had made the proper declaration in due time. All others who applied to have their reservations located and, reserved from sale, were informed that they could not be allowed reservations, in as much as their names did not appear upon the register of the agent. The lands of all other claimants were, of course sold in all these sections of the country, which were surveyed and brought into market at that time, subject, however, to the condition expressed in the proclamation offering said lands for sale,–that if any reservation secured, to any Indian by the treaty should be sold, such sale would not be confirmed.

Reservations Claimed

It was soon ascertained that there were many who claimed reservations under the fourteenth article whose names were not to be found upon either of the lists furnished by Colonel Ward and who had no certificate of the necessary declaration.  It was objected by some that Colonel Ward had neglected to register their names. Although they made the proper declaration in due time.  Others affirmed that their names had been registered, but that a part of the register, or the paper upon which their names had been taken down, was lost, and others alleged that he had refused to register their names when applied to for that purpose.

The complaints upon which these grounds became so numerous, and the individual applications to the Government for relief increased in such a degree that on the 13th of October 1834, the locating agent was instructed by the Department of War, under the direction of the President, to give public notice that those Indians who considered themselves entitled to reservations under the fourteenth article of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, and whose names were not found upon the register of Colonel Ward, should exhibit to the locating agent, evidence of their claims.  These instructions further authorized the locating agent to make locations for all such heads of families as should bring themselves within the provisions of the fourteenth article, and who should satisfy him by proof that their names were not registered by reason of the mistake or neglect of the agent.  In all cases in which the lands clamed had been sold the locating agent was directed to designate lands of equal quantity and of as nearly value as practicable and all reservations located under these instructions were directed to be reserved from sale, and were only to become valid and absolute by the confirmation of Congress.  The locating agent was strictly enjoined to make detailed reports, showing the names, standing and credibility of the witness, and all the facts and circumstances in each case, with copies of the papers presented by each claimant, that their claims should be laid before the next (present) Congress.  These instructions of naions of the 13th of October up to the 24th of December, 1834, with the accompanying evidence, were submitted to Congress by the President , on the 9th of February, 1835, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs in the House of Representatives and a bill was reported to the House providing for more full and satisfactory investigation of the claims, but it was not fully acted upon.  The locating agent was informed by letter, from the Department of War, under date of March 11, 1835, of the failure of Congress to act upon the claims which had been presented, and he was further directed to report the locations he had made and those he might make under the instructions of the 13th of October to the Department, that they might be laid before the next present Congress.  These instructions of the 11th of March 1835, were accompanied with the assurance that the lands located should be reserved from sale until Congress could act upon them.  The locating agent, it appears under these renewed instructions, proceeded to make numerous additional locations.  All the locations made under the instructions of the 13th of October 1834, and of the 11 of March, 1835, and which is estimated amount of 615,686 acres, with the evidence upon which they are founded, are now submitted to Congress, and the question is, shall the whole or any part of them be confirmed?”

The Committee their state reasons why is impracticable for them to pass upon the evidence and make recommendations as to confirming the grants.  They meet objections which are offered and give reasons why a commission should be appointed to inquire into the rights of the Mississippi Choctaws.  They state why the fact of there being a large number of claimants is no good reason to doubt the validity of their claims.  They meet the objections that the claimants were not registered within six months after the ratification of the treaty and referring to it say:

“The Committee are of the opinion that but little attention is due to the first general objection to the validity of these claims.  The proof is clear and conclusive that the late Choctaw Agent, Col. Ward, at the time it was made his duty to receive the declarations and keep a register of the names of the heads of such families as desired to become citizens o the states and to take reservations under the fourteenth article of the treaty, was incompetent to carry out and properly discharge his duty.  He was often capricious and arbitrary in his conduct in receiving declarations.  In some instances he appears to have refused to place the names of Indians upon his register because they did not make their applications at the agency where the office was usually kept.  At other times he appears to have given certificates or declarations made at other places.  In the instance of an entire band or company of applicants, the proof is very strong and satisfactory that he declined registering their names when their names and objects were stated to him symbolically by bundles of sticks, according to the Indian custom.  He is proved on that occasions to have taken their sticks into his hands and thrown then away, saying that there were too many of them and they must go west.  There are many circumstances stated in the proof before the Committee, which show that all the agents in the employment of the Government, in carrying this treaty with the Choctaws into execution, discouraged all applications for reservations under the fourteenth article, and Colonel Ward is stated to have advised the removing agents to threaten them with punishment if they did not emigrate.  The following extract form a letter written by Colonel Ward to the War Department on the 21st day of June, is full and decisive as to the credit that is due to the register transmitted to the Department, so far as it purports to contain the names of all the heads of family who signified their intentions to take reservations under this article of the treaty, and it also affords a strong presumption that a considerable number of heads of families besides those whose names appear upon the register, may justly claim reservations under this article of the treaty:

Colonel Ward’s Register

“I will observe that there are many more who wish to stay five years than it had been expected.  There were upwards of two hundred persons from one section of the country applied a few days since at a great council held near this place.  I put them off, as I did believe that they were advised to that course by designing men, who were always opposed to the treaty, and this I trust is the last effort they will be able to make to thwart the views of the Government”.

But there are still further proofs that but little credit can attach to the register kept by Colonel Ward of the applicants for reservations under the fourteenth article, as evidence of the whole number entitled.  The time prescribed by the treaty within which any head of family may bring himself with in the provisions of that article, expired on the 24th day of August 1831, and it was ten the duty of the agent to have forwarded the register, or a copy of it to the Department of War, agreeably to his instructions.  He does not appear to have transmitted it until some time in 1832, and after repeated applications form the the Department.  The register then transmitted to the Department contained only 69 heads of families.  The certified list afterwards furnished by Colonel Ward to the locating agent, contains the names of persons not found on the register of the Department of War, and the other list furnished the locating agent at the same time, though not certified by Ward, contains the names of some 20 persons, who are not upon nether of the other lists.  Upon this point the following extracts from the examination of Colonel Ward before a committee of the Legislature of Mississippi, is made:

“Question 3:  Did you refuse to register the applications of my Indian claiming under said treaty, when the application was made according to the treaty?

Answer:  I did not.  I only refused to register such applications as these, viz: When one Indian applied for many, when one Indian proposed to apply for many.  I refused to permit him to do so, but when I thus refused I told such Indian that each one must apply for himself, and when they did thus apply in their own proper persons, I always permitted them to register.  I bought a book in which I register all applications which I sent up tot he War Office.

Question 4: Did you lose any part of the register?

Answer: I think one leaf of the memorandum paper was lost in taking it around by M. Markee.  These memorandum paper was not the regular register, but only a sheet of paper folded up, which I made only for the accommodation of these men and I did not consider myself bound to register any application which was not made at my office at the agency; and these names, (which were between three and six only , in number) which I supposed were lost, were not made at my office in the Choctaw Agency.  These Indians, from three to six in number, I thought might be entitled to claim and I gave a certificate to Dr. John H. Hand that such was my belief.

It is not undeserving of note, as a circumstance showing how little reliance is to be placed upon the official acts of the late Choctaw Agent, that the register transmitted to the Department of Was is not a bound book, but merely a few sheets of common letter paper, slightly fastened together.  Here we also find a admission by the agent that he did not consider himself bound to register any application not made to him at the Agency, and also that he refused to register the name of any applicants except such as made their applications in person.  The treaty prescribes the conditions upon which the head of any Choctaw family should db entitled to a reservation under the fourteenth article.” (House Documents 1st Session 24th Congress, Vol 3, Report No. 663.)

The findings of the Committee are abundantly borne out by the evidence which is attached to their report which appears in the volume above cited.  We shall not quote at length from that evidence, but we cannot forbear making one quotation from the testimony of Colonel G. W. Martin.  He says: “During the same time Garrett E. Nelson presented to me a list containing about 80 names, which he said were the names of the Choctaw heads of families who had been registered by Colonel Ward, upon the applications of said Nelson, as a friend and agent of said Indians, with the view, as I understood of ascertaining whether I would reserve lands for them.  Upon examining this paper and comparing it with Colonel Ward’s list I discovered that not one name upon the list presented by Nelson was to be found upon Colonel Ward’s list. (P. 16 of above report.)

Following this report on March 3, 1837, an act was passed by Congress for the appointment of a Commission to find out the Choctaws where entitled under the fourteenth article of register transmitted to the Department, so far as it purports to contain the names of all the heads of family who signified their intentions to take reservations under this article of the treaty, and it also affords a strong presumption that a considerable number of heads of families besides those whose names appear upon the register, may justly claim reservations under this article of the treaty of June, 1831 is full and decisive as to the credit that id due to the register transmitted to the Department, so far as it purports to contain the names of all the heads of families who signified their intention to take reservations under this article of the treaty, and it also affords a strong presumption that a considerable number of heads of families besides those whose names appear upon the register, may justly claim reservations under this article of the treaty:

Thwarts the Views of the Government

I will observe that there are many more who wish to stay five years than it had been expected.  There were upwards of two hundred persons from one section of the country applied a few days since, at a great council, held near this place.  I put them off, as I did believe that they were advised to that course by designing men, who were always opposed to the treaty, and this I trust is the last effort they will be able to make to thwart the views of the Government.

But there are still further proofs that bet little credit can attach to the register kept by Colonel Ward of the applicants for reservations under the fourteenth article, as evidence of the whole number entitled.  The time prescribed by the treaty within which

Any head of a family may bring himself within the provisions of that article, expired on the 24th day of August, 1831, and it was then the duty of the agent to have forwarded the register, or a copy of it, to the Department of War, agreeably to his instructions.  He does no appear to have transmitted it until some time in 1832, and after repeated applications from the Department.  The register then transmitted to the Department contained only 69 heads of families.  The certified list afterwards furnished by Colonel Ward to the locating agent, contains the names of persons not found on the register of the Department of War, and the other list furnished the locating agent at the same time, though not certified by Ward, contains the names of some 20 persons, who are not upon either of the other lists.  Upon this point the following extracts from the examination of Colonel Ward before a Committee of the Legislature of Mississippi, is made:

“Question 3.  Did you refuse to register the application of any Indian claiming under said treaty, when that application was made according to the treaty?

Answer:  I did not. I only refused to register such applications as these, viz:  When one Indian applied for many: when one Indian proposed to apply for many, I refused to permit him to do so; but when I thus refused I told such Indian that each one must apply for himself: and where they did thus apply in their own proper persons, I always permitted them to register.  I bought a book in which I registered all application which I sent up to the War Office.

Question 4.  Did you lose any part of the register?

Answer:  I think one leaf of the memorandum paper was lost in taking it around by M. Markee.  This memorandum paper was not the regular register, but only a sheet of paper folded up, which I made only for the accommodation of these men, and I did not consider myself bound to register any application which was not made at my office at the agency: and these names, (which were between three and six only, in number,) which I supposed were lost, were not made at my office in the Choctaw Agency.  These Indians, from three to six in number, I thought might be entitled to claim, and I gave a certificate to Dr. John and that such was my belief.

It is not undeserving of note, as a circumstance showing how little reliance is to be placed upon the official acts of the late Choctaw Agent, that the register transmitted to the Department of War is not a bound book, but merely a few sheets of common letter paper, slightly fastened together.  Here we also find an admission by the agent that he did not consider himself bound to register any application not made to him at the Agency, and also that he refused to register the name of any applicants except such as made their application in person.  The treaty prescribes the condition upon which the head of any Choctaw family should be entitled to a reservation under the fourteenth article.  (House Documents, 1st Session 24th Congress, Vol. 3, Report No. 663.)

The findings of the Committee are abundantly borne out by the evidence which is attached to their report, which appears in the volume above cited.  We shall not quote at any length from the evidence but we cannot forbear making one quotation from the testimony of Colonel G. W. Martin.  He says: “During the same time Garrett E. Nelson presented to me a list containing about 80 names, which he said were the names of Choctaw heads of families, who had been registered by Colonel Ward, upon the application of said Nelson, as a friend and agent of said Indians, with the view, as I understood, of ascertaining whether I would reserve lands for them.  Upon examining this paper and comparing it with Colonel Ward’s lists, I discovered that not one name upon the list presented by Nelson, was to be found upon Colonel Ward’s list.”

Following this report on March 3, 1837, an act was passed by Congress for the appointment of a Commission to find out the Choctaws who were entitled under the fourteenth article of the treaty, who had not yet obtained their reservations.  Messrs. James Murray, of Maryland, P. D. Broom, of New Jersey, and P. R. Pray, of Mississippi, were appointed such Commissioners.  The latter resigned and Robert A. Barton was subsequently appointed.  This commission went to Mississippi and entered upon their duties.  They took a great deal of evidence in their effort to find out the Indians who were entitled to reservations under the fourteenth article of the treaty.  On July 31, 1838, they filed a report.  In that report they say:

“The witnesses, who were generally Indians, were marvelously ignorant of dates, ages and distances as measured by miles, and examined as they were through the medium of an interpreter ( and an unexceptional one) upon subjects altogether new to them, it was often found necessary to put many questions to them before an answer could be obtained on a simple question of fact.”  (Record Choctaw Nation vs. the United States page 133.)

We desire to call attention to this: That even so early as the year 1838, but seven years after the time when Colonel Ward was uncertain as to dates and distances in miles, and as to ages.  It might be remarked in passing, that there is nothing concerning which the memory is more uncertain than dates, ages and distances, — even the trained memories of the educated.

Receive Applications of the Indians

Again the Commission say in their report:–

“Col. Wm. Ward, the United States Indian Agent, was instructed by the Department of War, on the 21st of May, 1831, to receive the applications of the Indians to take the benefit of the fourteenth article of the treaty.  This letter was probably a fortnight or three weeks on its way to the agency.  From the proofs offered to the Board it appears that the office was opened for business on the latter part of June, thus the time allowed the Indian to signify his intention to remain in the country and take the benefit of the

treaty stipulations instead of six months, as allowed by the treaty, was reduced to two months.  From the great mass of proof offered to the Board, there can be no doubt of the entire unfitness of the agent for the station.  His conduct on many occasions was marked by a degree of hostility to the claims, calculated to deter the claimant from making application to him.  His manner to the Indians coming before him for registration was often arbitrary, tyrannical and insolent, and evidently intended to drive them west of the Mississippi, against their will, and in violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty.  From these causes it has become difficult at this late day to make clear proof in all cases of the application to him to be registered.  The book in which the names of a great number of Indians were registered by him, it is clear, has never been returned to the Government.  The Board have, therefore, thought it their duty to be satisfied with lighter testimony than under other circumstances they might have considered themselves bound to require.  They have received in evidence of their intention to remain in the country and take lands under the treaty, evidence either symbolical, by proxy, as well as by direct application.” (Id. Page 134.)

Here, then, so early as 1838, we find the Commissioners referring to the time as being a late day after the treaty, and saying that under all the circumstances they have thought it their duty to be satisfied with lighter testimony than under other circumstances they would require.  May we not say here that if after 70 years we can bring before this Department testimony fairly tending to show attempted compliance with the fourteenth article by the ancestors of these claimants, that then their claim ought to appeal strongly to the equity and justice of the department?

Again the Commission say:

“It was the almost universal intention of these Indians now remaining east of the Mississippi to take the benefit of the fourteenth article of the treaty.” (Id. Page 135.)

Reading the evidence in this cause there can be no doubt that the ancestors of these claimants were of the Choctaw blood.  Indeed, this was recognized by the Dawes Commission, and is virtually conceded in their opinion.  The record will also show that they remained cast of the Mississippi.  The presumption is that it was their wish to take advantage of the fourteenth article.

The Commission also say:  “The board also return herewith various lists containing the names of the Indian claimants under the fourteenth article of the treaty, filed at various times by their counsel, marked one to …., inclusive.  They amount, it will be perceived, to 1349.  Some of the names are repeated in consequence of the same Indians having contracted with more than one attorney in fact for the prosecution of their claims before the Government.  The 261 cases particularly reported upon form a part of the number.  Besides these it is understood that there are other claims yet to be filed.” (Id. Page 135.)

The Commission further say:

“They feel it due to themselves, however, to say that they should have had more confidence in their opinions if they had been allowed full time to examine with greater care the various matters which are found in so large a body of evidence.” Page 136

Colonel Ward, it has been seen, returned a register of only 69 names; Messrs. Murray and Vroom returned a register of 1300,.. declared that there were other claims to be filed and that the time allowed them was too short.  Is it not clear, beyond question, that there were some persons, many, who were entitled to rights under this treaty, who were not registered by Messrs. Murray and Vroom?  If now a reasonably good showing is made by applicants that their ancestors appeared before Colonel Ward for registry, ought not their claims to share in the present allotment to receive favorable adjudication?

Honorable T. Hartley Crawford Commissioner of Indian Affairs

In a letter of date January 27th, 1842, addressed by the Honorable T. Hartley Crawford, Commissioner on Indian Affairs, to the Honorable J. C. Spencer, Secretary of War, and by him transmitted to the Committee on Indian Affairs, of the Senate, it is stated that Messrs. Murray and Vroom returned an a list of 1349 names of persons claiming under the fourteenth article; that by reason of certain names being duplicated, the actual number was reduced to 1274, and of this number only 261 had been passed upon.  The Commissioner also quotes from their report that there were other claims yet to be filed. (Sen. Doc, 2nd Ses. 27th Cong., Vol. 3., Doc. 188. p. 5.)

Here then, nearly four years after the report of Messrs. Murray and Vroom, we find that nothing has been done since their, term of office expired, toward determining who were entitled to rights under the fourteenth article.

In 1838, they referred to the fact of there being difficulty in making such a determination.  New relations had doubtless taken place on the part of many of the claimants;  many had doubtless died, so that in 1842, while there might be numbers who were entitled to the reservations, many claims would not be presented.

This same Commissioner in a paper of date March 7, 1843, says, “the agent of the Government. Col. Ward, unfortunately so managed his business that it is left almost entirely to oral testimony to prove the names of those who applied for registration within six months, and the signification of their intention to remain and become citizens of the states; that he kept a book of about a fool’s cap size containing two or three quires of paper, and which was almost filled with the names of persons registered is proved; and it is also proved that this book was afterwards partially torn up and used as shaving paper, was left out in the weather and finally was sent to one of the Folsoms, after which nothing more was heard of it.  (Record Choctaw Nation vs. the United States, page 286)

In a memorial made by certain Indians, Choctaw citizens of Mississippi, to the Congress of the United States, and on the 15th day of December 1841 referred to the Committee of the House on Indian Affairs, we find it stated. –“Regarding the Commission composed of Messrs. Murray, Vroom and Barton, before the Commissions had examined half of our claims the time prescribed to them expired; and now three years have since then passed away, without Congress renewing the Commission or taking any other steps to do us justice.” (Ex. Docs, Hou. Rep. 2nd Session of 27th Congress, Vol. 1, Doc. 15.)

August 23, 1812, a new law was passed for the appointment of Commissioners to determine the rights of Choctaw Indians claiming under the fourteenth article. (5 Stats. At Large, page 513.)  Under that law a Commission consisting of Messrs. Claiborne, Graves and Tyler were appointed.  Claiborne and Graves made a report in January, 1843.  After referring to three classes of cases considered by them, they classify the third as follows;  “3.  Where the Indians applied to the Agent in numbers and attempted to signify their intention to be registered and were refused by the agent.”  Speaking of this class, they say:

“The third class of cases is one which at first view night seem not to come strictly and literally within the provisions of the fourteenth article, but which appears to be fully embraced within its spirit and entirely covered by the act organizing this Commission.

Ward Opposed the Indians

The treaty requires that the Indian desirous of availing himself of the benefit of the fourteenth article shall be permitted to do so by signifying his intention to the agent, with six months after the ratification of this treaty, its.  It appears in evidence before the Commissioners by the general depositions, as well as by testimony in the cases attended to, that Ward, the agent appointed by the Government to receive the signification of the Intention, became for some cause or other, opposed to the Indians availing themselves of the fourteenth article, and exceedingly desirous that they should go west.  After having registered a few names, he began both by threats and persuasion to discourage any further applications.  At length he openly refused to register the names of those who applied to him at the Agency, but told them to collect at Benjamin LeFlore’s at the time appointed for the annuity, and that time was within six months designated, and as the occasion and place were of great public resort, it became generally known and understood among the Indians that the agent had appointed that time and place for receiving the signification of intention, and to register the names of those who had determined to stay in the country and avail themselves of the provisions of the fourteenth article.

Accordingly, and in pursuance of the invitation of the agent, large numbers collected at LeFlore’s, at the time of the annuity, for the express and publicly announced object of signifying their intentions, and having their names registered for the five years stay.  Others sent in their names upon lists prepared by the direction of Ward, and placed them in the hands of persons authorized and appointed to deliver them to Ward for registry.  The numbers assembled at LeFlore’s and awaiting their turn to be registered, being very great, but few could get access to Ward’s presence at a time.  At length, after taking down the names of several of the applicants, and receiving the list sent in.  Ward declared to the Choctaws that there were too many of them; that if they wanted land they must go west, and he would register no more, etc.  This refusal of the agent to  receive more applications was repeated several times with much emphasis and excitement to those who were present in the room, until finding it useless to pursuer the matter any further, they withdrew, to inform those who were in other apartments and outside of the building of the agent’s refusal to receive any more applications, or register any more names.”

The Commission then held that all the persons named above as in the third class were entitled to lands under the treaty. They say:

“The Commissioners have no doubt that every name embraced in this class of cases was entitled to be registered and would have been duly registered but for the obstinate refusal of the agent.” (Record Choctaw Nation vs. the United States, page 357.)

At page 181 of the record in the case of the Choctaw Nation vs. the United States, Adam James, a half-breed Choctaw, gives a deposition in which he says:

He “attended a council held near the Choctaw Agency in June, 1831.  The evening before the Council met, Colonel Ward told the Indians that this was the last notice he would give on the subject, and invited the Indians to come and register on the next morning, and told them they would have no other chance, as this was the last appointment he would make.  There were eight hundred to on thousand present, of all ages and sexes. * * * *  the Indians arriving in the evening before the day of the Council.”  Other depositions refer to this same meeting but place it somewhat later.

February 15, 1859, Mr. Sebastian, of the Committee on Indian Affairs, made a long and exhaustive report concerning the rights of the Choctaws.  Among many interesting items the report contains the following:

Seventy-four Families Secure Reservations

“In 1844 the Government agent, Gov. McRea, of Mississippi, reported that seven thousand Choctaws were still in the ceded country.  Out of nearly sixteen hundred families embraced in this number, only sixty-nine were reported by the Government agent as entitled to land.  Ultimately seventy four more families succeeded in securing reservations.  The others, constituting more than nine-tenths of those who remained, failed to obtain any land at all.”  (Record Choctaw Nation vs. the United States, vol 1, page 1388.)

Referring to the act of 1842, he says:

That act “went far beyond the treaty in requiring the party to have had and own as improvement.  This the treaty did not require, and so it was very properly decided by Mr.

Attorney-General Grundy.  It went beyond it in requiring him to have resided continuously on the same improvement for five years, because the treaty did not confine the Indian in the selection of his reservation to the lands on which he resided or had an improvement, but only gave him the privilege of selections that if he preferred it.  It was a provision in his favor.” (Id. P. 1390.)

We note from the above that even in 1844, there were seven thousand Choctaws still residing in the ceded country.  We have already seen that in the early times it was found that the Choctaws who remained in the ceded country expected to take advantage of the fourteenth article of the treaty.  A presumption arises that the ancestors of the applicants in this cause wished to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed to them by that article.

The historical review we have made indicates the difficulty that has always existed in showing who attempted to take advantage of the fourteenth article, and it will show also that there must have been many who appeared before Colonel Ward whose names not only did not appear on his register, but which likewise would not appear on the register, but which likewise would not appear on the register of Murray and Vroom, or Clairborne and Graves.

In View of certain testimony which appears in the record of the names of the ancestors of these applicants, and of the fact that some of the Brashears lived in Kentucky, we desire to now call attention to some other facts appearing in the public documents.

In the list of Choctaw Indians owning farms in the Choctaw country afterwards ceded to the United States, we find Z. Breshears, Sr., who lived on Black Bluff, on the Tom Bigbee River. (Senate Doc. 1st Session 23rd Congress, Vol. 3, Doc. 266, page 99.)

At page 118 of the same document, we find the name of Alexander Brashears, (speddled Brashears,) who resides on Suckennatcha Creek, and also the names of Zadok Brashears, Jr., and of Delila Brashers and Turner Brashears, also residing on the same creek.

At page 133 we find Benjamin Brashears, Louis Brashears, and Turner Brashears, all of whom reside in the Yazoo Valley, and Vaughn Breshears, who resides in Honey Island.  Ward’s register, which appears at page 186 of this same document, contains the name of Alexander Brashears, Delila Brashears, Zadok Brashears, Turner Brashears, Jr., Rachael Brashears, and does not contain the names of any of the others.

At page 143 of the same report, we find the name of Elahwab-tubbee, who lives five miles from Crapes, a Frenchman.  On looking to Mellish’s map for the year 1820, we find that there is laid down an old French church, in the limits of the Choctaw Nation, near an old English race track.  This church is situated near the line of Alabama.  This fact is noted here in passing, because, as will appear later, some of the witnesses referred to the Brashears as being of French extraction.  The name Dumas is, of course, decidedly French.  It clearly appears that there was a French settlement in the ceded territory, and that the French and Indians were more or less mingled by intermarriage.  This is in keeping with the preceding history of the country.

Evidence of Witnesses in the Records

There also seems to have been at this time considerable passing of the Indians, and those of Indian blood, between the Choctaw country, embracing a part of Mississippi and Alabama and the State of Kentucky.  Indeed, some of the Choctaw Indians were educated there.  In 1825,  Richard M. Johnson established in Kentucky an academy for the education of the Choctaw youth, and it was in a flourishing condition in 1845, and possibly continued so very much later, though as to this we cannot say. (Senate Document, 1st Session, 29th Congress, Vol. 1. Doc. 1, page 453.)

September 29, 1833, Jacob Daniel writing from near Jones’ Bluff, Sumpter County, Alabama, to the Honorable Louis Cass, Secretary of War, with regard to the claims of his son, states that he had his own name entered on Colonel Ward’s register within the prescribed time:  that he had a wife and four children with him, under the age of ten; but that his first born son was at the Choctaw Academy, in Kentucky, and had not been registered, as the writer was instructed in the art of constructing treaties. (Sen. Doc. 1st Session, 23rd Congress, Vol. 3, Doc. 266, page 31.)

On page 38, S. D. Fisher, under date of August 20, 1833, writing the Secretary of War, From the Choctaw Nation, west, with regard, as he says, to his own interest, says:

“From  the time I left my father’s house, which was soon after my return from the school in Kentucky, I have never resided within the limits of the Choctaw country.”  He shows himself to have been an Indian, but that his father-in-law was a white man.  We desire here to call attention to the fact that he also refers to two other person shoes names were embraced in the same article as his, McDonald and Jones. (Id., page 39.)  We refer to this, as some of the applicants in this cause claim to be descendants of McDonald, who was an Indian.  They are not claiming rights by virtue of their descent from McDonald, but the circumstance is of some importance in showing the Indian connection of the ancestors of applicants.

Referring to the supplementary article to the treaty of 1830, we find the name of James J. McDonald, as well as those of sundry persons of the Brashear family.

We shall not undertake to set forth the testimony of all the witnesses, or any considerable number of them.  Much of this bears simply on the question of descent, and a good deal is in the nature of repetition.  We shall make a short abstract of so much of the testimony as shall be helpful in showing the right of  the applicants to be awarded allotments.  In doing so, it shall be our endeavor to call attention to such of the most prominent facts in the testimony of the witnesses referred to, not only as they may be favorable to applicants, but, as well where they may appear to militate against their claims, for it is our wish that the abstract which we shall present to this Department shall be a true reflection of the testimony hearing on the claims of the applicants.  When the testimony is properly weighed, both wherein it favors the applicants and wherein it is against them, it seems to us to make a strong case for them.

Miles Lantrip

The testimony of this applicant was taken by the Commission at Philadelphia, Mississippi, on the 1st day of March, 1902.  The circumstances under which it was taken do not appear from the record, nor can counsel preparing this brief state what they were, but it is presumed that the evidence was taken by the Commission when they sent some of their office force to Mississippi to enquire into the rights of such Choctaws as they should find there.

The witness says he is seventy-three years old, having been born November 28, 1828, at Sarepta, in Calhoun County, Mississippi.  He has been living in Chickasaw and Calhoun counties since 1810.  Before this, he lived in Alabama, in Sumpter county, and a year in Fayette county.  He was born in Christian county, Kentucky, and was brought to Alabama a child.  His father was John Lantrip, and his mother Elizabeth, the daughter of Lawrence Brashear, who, as is stated above, and as appears from the genealogical table, was the son of John Brashear and his wife, Nancy Jane.  The witness says he claims his Indian blood from his mother; that his father had no Indian blood so far as he knows.  His mother was born, he thinks, in Christian county, Kentucky, but “he just simply doesn’t know.”  His mother was not at any time in Mississippi, but lived in Alabama on the Tom Bigbee River.  She was married at Demopolis and moved from there to Kentucky, where she stayed a year and then came back.  He does not know how long she lived in Alabama, before she went to Kentucky.  His grandfather was in Kentucky.  His mother got her Choctaw blood from her father. Lawrence Brashear died some time in the 80’s, and witness thinks he was eighty seven years of age.  He does not know how much Indian blood he has.  Lawrence married Sallie Edmington, who died before witness could remember and had no Choctaw blood so far as he knows.  Witness does not know where Lawrence Brashear was born, but thinks it was either in Southampton county, Virginia, or Northampton county, North Carolina.  He does not know when he was born, but thinks it was before the beginning of the 19th century.  He came west while young and before his marriage.  Witness thinks he went to Christian or Hopkins county, Kentucky, and then came to the Choctaw Nation.  He was at Demopolis, in Alabama, in the 20’s witness thinks, but is not right sure.  Witness was just an infant when his mother come from Kentucky to Alabama.  Witness lived in Western Alabama until he was eleven years old, and then moved to Mississippi.

Question-Did either of them, (that is, his grandfather or grandmother,) talk the Choctaw language?

Answer.- They could talk a good deal of it; some of it; no, a good deal of it.  Learned it from the Indians, I reckon.

Q.—They associated with the white people, did they, or with the Indians?

A.—Well, I don’t know.  They were not with the white people.  They were considered white people.  They lived there with the Indians a good deal.

Witness’s father was a farmer.  The father of Lawrence was named John.  His mother’s name was Jane, witness thinks Nancy Jane.  Witness had see her many times.

Additional Witnesses

She had Choctaw blood.  Her maiden name was either Lipsie or Black.  He had heard his grandfather call his uncle, Billy Black, and he knew the Blacks in that country.  Witness does not know where Nancy Jane Brashear was born, nor how much Choctaw blood she had.  He would not state as a fact that it was Choctaw Indian blood that she had, independent of the proof made by descendants in application for identification.  Seventy-one years ago witness was living in Alabama, he thinks in Fayette or Pickens county, but cannot remember which.

Question.—Did Jane look like an Indian?

Answer.—She was a lean, spare-made, dark-skinned, black haired woman.

She came to Mississippi in 41 or 42.  John Brashear died in 41.  Nancy Jane Brashear lived in Alabama where witness did before she came to Mississippi.  The witness says some of his ancestors were residing on the Tom Bigbee River in 1830, but he does no know that any of them attempted to comply with the fourteenth article, nor does he know that his grandfather owned any improvements in the Choctaw Nation.  He does not know whether any of his ancestors emigrated to the west, between the years 33 and 38.  If any of his people eve received land from the Government in accordance with the fourteenth article of the treaty, he did not hear of it.  He was small at the time.  He did not hear of the Commissioners’ being in Mississippi.  He had heard Colonel Lawrence Brashear speak of his land warrants and scrip, but had never seen them and did not know what they were.  Supposed they were old Revolutionary scrip, or something of that kind, but did not know.  Col. Lawrence Brashear entered land under the Government in Calhoun county, Mississippi.  As remembered by witness, the children of John and Mary Jane Brashear were Lawrence, James, a deaf and dumb man, who died without issue, Elizabeth, Keziah, Nellie, who apparently married a man named Chrestman, Polly, who apparently married a man named Miller.  The witness did not speak or understand the Choctaw language, but his mother could talk it. (Rec. p. 16.)

Charles F. Murphy

The witness is not an applicant.  He was introduced as a witness in Mississippi by Miles Lantrip.  He knew Lawrence Brashear and his wife.  The witness of his own knowledge did not know that Lawrence had Indian blood; he had simply heard it.  He had heard that “old grandmother Brashear,” wife of old Colonel Brashear, ( that is, Nancy Jane, the wife of John,) looks indicated that she had some Indian blood in her, but he could not say how much.  Lawrence Brashear and his wife lived together as husband and wife, and he always claimed Elizabeth Lantrip as his daughter.  They lived in the marital relation and reared a family.  (Rec. p. 28.)

Thaddeus W. Dumas

This applicant was sixty-four years of age at the time he gave his evidence in 1902.  He was born in Mississippi, in 1838, in Lowndes county.  He lived there until he was five years old, when his father moved to Fayette county, Alabama.  His father was Winchester Dumas, a son of Elhanan W. Dumas and his wife, Elizabeth.  Witness knew of his grandfather, E. W. Dumas, living in Alabama:  did not know anything with regard to Elizabeth’s living in Mississippi or Alabama.  He does not know anything with regard to his ancestors attempting to comply with the provisions of the fourteenth article. (Rec. p. 65.)

Aurelius W. Dumas

This applicant, fifty-eight years of age, is the son of Winchester and his wife, Louisa, and a brother of Thaddeus.  He says that his father was the oldest child of Elhanan and Elizabeth, and was born in 1805, he thinks in South Carolina, but is not sure.  His father was married sometime in 1822 or 23, but the witness cannot remember the exact date, as the Bible has been burned.  His grandmother, Elizabeth Dumas, married E. W. Dumas, a Frenchman; she had one fourth Choctaw blood.  He thinks his grandmother resided in Mississippi, in 1830.  He had seen her sister, Keziah, when he lived in the Choctaw Nation, in Mississippi; she visited his family there,.  He does not know, but from the history of the family, thinks his grandmother Elizabeth had a family in Mississippi, in 1830.  He thinks some of her children were born in Mississippi, his uncles, Manly and Ben.  These would be, he thinks, one about seventy-five years of age and one about eighty years of age, if they were living.  Witness has heard that his grandmother went before the United States authorities to comply with the treaty of 1830.

Question.—Now, do you know if any of your ancestors complied with any of the provision of that Article of the Treaty?

Answer.—I don’t know:  from the history of the thing unless they have just registered, very little.  Under that treaty I have heard that my grandmother registered under that treaty.  My grandmother, Elizabeth Dumas. (Rec. p. 70.)

Mary E. Carothers

This applicant, sixty-six years of age, is a daughter of John Brashear Dumas, the son of Elhanan and Elizabeth, by Caroline, his wife.   She claims one sixteenth Choctaw blood.  She was born in Fayetteville, Fayette county, Alabama, and is now living at Jackson, Mississippi, with her son-in-law,  Monroe McClurg, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi.  She says her grandmother was Elizabeth Brashear Dumas, who married E. W. Dumas.  She had one fourth Choctaw blood.  She was living in the Choctaw Nation in Alabama, in 1830, but supposes that they did, for her grandfather owned land in Alabama.  She knew from members of her family, of their living there on land in Alabama, in Pickens county, near Mill Creek.  She does not know whether her ancestors went before Colonel Ward and attempted to comply with article fourteen, nor did she know whether they went before either of the Commissions.  She had heard something with regard to her grandfather’s going before some Commission or Colonel Ward, but did not know what it was.  She had simply heard of his going to Aberdeen, Mississippi, on business relating to the rights of Choctaw Indians.  Farther that theat she did not know.  Her grandmother had a sister named Keziah, who married Flem. Thompson and died in Texas.  She saw Keziah frequently and became well acquainted with her.  Keziah spoke the Choctaw language.  Keziah had dark hair and dark eyes, but not black.  The witness had seen a great many Indians, and would say, judging from her features and witness’s knowledge of Indian blood, that Keziah showed her Indian blood in her appearance. (Rec. p. 89.)

Susan M. Hendricks

This applicant, fifty-six years of age, is the daughter of J. D. Dumas.  She was born in Faye3tte county, Alabama, and moved from there to Mississippi, where she lived until she was nine years old, and then came to Texas.  Her father and mother were married in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1837.  She knew of her grandmother’s living in Alabama, and says she died in Fayette County; she does not know the year of her grandmother’s birth nor that of her death,  but says that if her grandmother were now living, she would be over one hundred years of age.  Jackson D., her father, died in 1884, at the age of sixty-nine years.  She does not know ought with regard to compliance or attempted compliance with the fourteenth article. (Rec. p. 429.)

John W. Dumas

This applicant, fifty-five years of age, is a son of J. D. Dumas.  He was born in Fayette county, Alabama, but moved first to Mississippi and then to Texas.  He thinks that his grandmother was living in Alabama, in Fayette county, in 1830. and was then the head of a family.  His father moved about a good deal; he liven in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas and Arkansas.  He thinks his grandmother applied to colonel Ward under the fourteenth article and was refused; there is such history in the family.  In 1859 his father, who was then living in Texas, went North to buy sheep.  He stopped in the Nation and got acquainted with an old man by the name of Wallace LeFlore.  He stated to LeFlore that he had a right in the Indian Nation.  Later LeFlore was at his father’s house in Sherman and told his father that the latter did have a right in the Nation. (Rec. p. 450.)

Albert Dumas

This applicant is forty seven years of age and the son of Jackson D., by a wife whom the latter married in 1833, at Ripley, Mississippi.  His father was born in South Carolina, February 26th, 1815.  Witness had been told that his grandmother attempted to comply with article fourteen, but it was all a matter of hearsay with him. (Rec. p. 494.)

Dixie Dumas Connolly

This applicant, forty years of age, is a daughter of Jackson D. Dumas.  She lives at Fairland, in the Indian Territory.  She had been told that her grandmother.  Elizabeth Dumas, attempted to comply with the treaty before Colonel Ward, but was refused.  This was in the history of her family.  Witness knew of witnesses who had appeared before the Dawes Commission and testified on this point.  (Rec. p. 515.)

Scott S. Dumas

This applicant is fifty-one years of age and a son of J. P. Dumas, who was a son of Elhanan and Elizabeth.  His mother was M. A. E. Thompson, a daughter of Keziah, who married Fleming J. Thompson, the said M. A. E. Thompson and J. P. Dumas being first cousins, as has been heretofore set forth in this brief.  The witness exhibits certified copy of the marriage certificate showing that Fleming J. Thompson and Keziah Brashear were married in Kentucky, in 1818.  The witness nanes many of the descendants of John and Nancy Jane Brashear.  He had not personally heard his mother claiming Choctaw blood, but knew that it was family history that his treat grandmother was one-fourth Indian and the they lived in Alabama.

He knew Keziah Thompson, but did not know the Christian mane of his great grandmother or great grandfather.  He thinks his grandmother and his grandfather Thompson died in Texas in the “70’s”.  His father, James P. Dumas, was born in 1820, in South Carolina.  His mother, M.A.E. Thompson was born in 1824.  His grandmother, Keziah Thompson, was seventy-three years of age at the time of her death, was of dark complexion and her hair was black.  She was rather slender as the witness remembers her.

Witness’s mother and father were married about April, 1841.  His father was born in South Carolina and moved to Alabama.  His mother was born in Fayette county, Alabama.  December 26, 1824, and lived there until after she married, and then moved to Texas shortly after marriage.  The history that witness got was that his grandfather Thompson and wife cam from Kentucky to Alabama, were living in Alabama in 1819, and continued to live there until 1844, when they moved to Mississippi and thence moved to Texas, in 1857.  This information was given to him by his mother and he wrote it out.  At one time it was published as a kind of family history.

The records of the marriage of this applicant’s father and mother had been burned, but his father had been a soldier in the Mexican War, and in seeking a pension for his mother, he obtained from his uncle an affidavit as to the marriage of his father and mother which was filed in the Pension Office.  Numerous witnesses in the Record have testified to J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas being married.  Witness’s mother died August, 1901.  (Rec., pp. 1, 11, 12.)

Lena Fulton

This applicant is thirty-two years of age and a grand-daughter of J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas.  It had always been understood in her family that her great grandmother, Keziah Thompson, had one-fourth Indian blood.  She had heard her grandmother, Mary A. E. Dumas, make this statement.  (Rec., 544.)

Dan H. Dumas

This witness, fifty three years old, is a son of James P. and Mary A. E. Dumas.  He knows that ther was Choctaw blood in the family, coming from his grandmother, Keziah, and her sister, Elizabeth, but did not know the amount.  The fact of Choctaw blood was just handed down to the children of J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas verbally.  Mr. And Mrs. Dumas never cared to talk about it.  They did not want their children to mix up with the full bloods, and did not think it was best for their children to move into the Indian Territory, and at the time it was not deemed to be of much worth anyway.  Witness had heard that Keziah’s Indian blood was one-half, but did not know.  Witness had never seen Elizabeth; he knew Keziah.  Witness’s father was born in South Carolina in 1820, in the Greenville District; he went from there to Alabama or Mississippi.  Witness’s mother was born in 1824.  His father and mother married somewhere about 41, 2, or 3, and then they came to Texas, where his mother died on the 8th of August, 1901.  His father died in February, 1875.  (Rec., p. 574.)

Victoria J. Perce

This applicant, forty-seven years old, is a daughter of J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas.  She says Keziah Brashear, her grandmother, was born in 1797, and died in 1870, she was married in Kentucky.  Witness thinks she was not born there.  She lived in Alabama; must have been living there when witness’s mother was born, which was on the 26th of December, 1821.  Witness’s mother was born in Alabama near the Mississippi line.  Witness is reasonably sure that her grandmother, Keziah Brashear, did live in the old Choctaw Nation in Alabama in 1830.  Witness does not know whether any of her ancestors attempted to comply with the Fourteenth Article.  (Rec., p. 614.)

Belle Leslie

This applicant, thirty-three years of age, is a daughter of J. P. and Ma. A. E. Dumas.  She says her grandmother, Keziah, was living in Alabama, in Fayette County, near the Mississippi line, at the time of the marriage of her mother in April, 1841.  Her mother was born in Fayette County, Alabama, and her father said he was born in South Carolina.  Her mother’s parents were living in Alabama in 1824, when her mother was born, and continued residing there and in Mississippi until they moved to Texas.  The witness knows nothing of the attempted compliance with Article Fourteen.  (Rec., p. 699.)

John F. Sanders

This applicant, fifty-eight years of age, is a son of Nancy Jane, the daughter of Keziah.  Witness was born in Calhoun county, Mississippi, and moved to Texas in 1854.  Keziah Brashear, his grandmother, was living in Fayette County, Alabama in 1830.  Witness’s mother, if living at the time of testifying, would be seventy or seventy-two years of age, and she was born in Fayette County, Alabama.

Emsley M. Sanders

This applicant, fifty-six years old, is a grandson of Keziah and a son of Nancy Jane and William T. Sanders.  He knew his grandmother, Keziah; thinks the amount of Indian Blood she had was one-fourth.  He had heard her speak the Indian language, and she told the children it was Choctaw; heard her say a few words; never heard her right along in a conversation.  He had heard her say she could talk Indian when she was with them.  The witness had heard her at one time talking to some man and she said, “ That man has as much Indian blood as I have.”  They talked in English and a little in Indian, and the Indian she used was the same which she had used to the children and told them was Choctaw.  The witness could not say it was Choctaw.

Q.    “You answer my question; were those Choctaw Indians, and was she talking to Choctaw Indians in the Choctaw language?”

A.     “I could not say that is was the Choctaw language.”

Q.    “Were they Choctaw Indians?”

A.  “They said they were.”   (Rec., p. 663.)

Cynthia Jane Dicken

This applicant, fifty-one years of age, is a daughter of Nancy Jane Sanders.  Keziah Brashear, her grandmother, lived in Alabama and Mississippi.  She had one-fourth Choctaw blood.  She heard Keziah speak of living in Alabama; of being in the first settling of it.  She had heard of her speaking the Choctaw language.  (Rec. p. 69r.)

William T. Sanders

This applicant, fifty years old, is a son of the above-named William T. Sanders, who married Nancy Jane Thompson.  He says he knew his grandmother, Keziah.  She lived in Alabama and Mississippi, but he does not know whether she lived there in 1830, and never heard her say whether or not she had Indian blood.  He thinks he has heard her say something about Col. Ward, but cannot remember what it was that she said.  He does not know anything with regard to what was done towards complying with the fourteenth article.  (Rec., p. 700.)

James P. Sanders

This applicant, if forty-five years of age, and a grandson of Keziah.  He knew her, but did not know whether she claimed Choctaw blood.  (Rec. p. 706.)

Missieniah Ellison

This applicant, forty three years of age, is a daughter of Nancy Jane Sanders.  She thinks her mother was born in 1806 and died in 1856. (Rec., p. 712.)

Sue A. Thompson

This applicant, thirty six years of age, is a daughter of James M. Thompson, who was a son of Keziah.  She says she presumes her grandmother, Keziah, was living in Mississippi at the time of the treaty, and the head of a family, because her father was born in 1822.

Q.  Was Keziah Thompson a recognized member of the Choctaw tribe of Indians at the time when this Treaty was made, September 27, 1830?

A.  I suppose she was; I have heard of these things, but I have not paid any attention to it.  (Rec., p. 770.)

Emma C. Cannon

This applicant is fifty years of age.  She is a daughter of E. J. C. Thompson, who was a son of Keziah.  She spells the Brashear name R-ra-shier. Keziah married Fleming J. Thompson.  Witness’s own mother was the daughter of a man by the name of Peter Tittle, who likewise had Choctaw blood in him.  In 1830 , Keziah Thompson was a married woman and living in Alabama. (At one place witness seemed to show that Keziah was living in Mississippi at this time, but upon reading her whole testimony it will be found that it was Alabama and not Mississippi.)

Witness’s grandmother, Keziah, went from Alabama to Mississippi at some time between 1830 and 1845.  Witness thinks Keziah had something like one half Indian blood.  Witness’s maternal grandfather, Peter Tittle, had one eighth.  (It is not important to notice this at this place, as no claim is made under it, but it may be given heed merely as showing the relations of applicant’s family with the Choctaw Indians.  (Rec.,p. 777.)

George Thompson

This applicant, forty-eight years of age, is a son of E. J. C. Thompson.  He says his father was born in Alabama in 1820, but does not know at what particular place he was born.  He presumes his grandmother, Keziah Brashear, was the head of the family of children in Alabama or Mississippi in 1830, because his father was born in 1820.  (Rec., p. 798.)

Ida Sandford

This applicant, forty-one years of age, is the daughter of E. J. C. Thompson.  She says her grandmother, Keziah, was living in Mississippi or Alabama in 1830.  (Rec., p. 812.)

Lula Thompson Noe

This applicant, twenty-none years of age, is a daughter of E. J. C. Thompson.  She thinks her grandmother was living in Mississippi or Alabama in 1830, as her father was born in 1820.  Witness knows she was living in one place or the other.  Witness’ mother was born in Alabama, but went from there to Mississippi when she was a child, and her father and mother were married in Mississippi December 4, 1845.  (Rec., p. 820.)

Elizabeth Wood

This applicant is sixty-four years of age, and is the daughter of Jane F. Shipp and the granddaughter of Elizabeth Brashear.  She says her mother had talked a good deal about her family, but that witness’ health had been bad and that she had forgotten a good deal of it.  She says her grandmother, Elizabeth Brashear, was born in South Carolina and died in Alabama.  She was the head of a family there in 1830, in Fayette County or near there.  She lived there a few years and died there.  Witness cannot remember whether her mother said anything to her about Elizabeth Brashear claiming as a Choctaw Indian under Treaty of 1830.  Witness thinks Elizabeth was about sixty five years of age when she died.  (Rec., p. 852.)

(NOTE;–This witness is most probably mistaken, from all the testimony, as to what was the age of Elizabeth at the time of here death, if she died in 1835.)

Sarah Jame Thompson

Mistress Thompson is not a claimant, but is the mother of a claimant.  She is fifty-three years of age.  She was the wife of W. J. S. Thompson, who was the son of Keziah.  She had lived forty-four years in Texas, and was born in Alabama in 1838.  She later lived in Mississippi, and them in Texas.  She was acquainted with Keziah and her husband, Fleming j. Thompson.  She became acquainted with them in Mississippi in Chickasaw County.  She knew the children of Keziah.  She knew relations of Keziah Thompson other than descendants as follows:  Mary Brashear, Rachael Brashear and Isabel Brashear, ordinarily called “Is.”  She also knew Jim Brashear and Col. Lawrene Brashear, who were brothers of Keziah.  Jim was a deaf and dumb man.  She did not know Elizabeth Brashear, who married E. W. Dumas.  She knew Keziah and Fleming J. Thompson in Mississippi, first in the year 1848.  They moved from Alabama to Mississippi and from Mississippi to Texas.  Fleming J. Thompson died in Texas and was buried in Elm Grove Cemetery.  If the inscription on his tombstone is as read by Louis Dumas it is wrong, in that Fleming Thompson did not move from Alabama to Texas, but moved from Alabama to Mississippi and thence to Texas.  Keziah Thompson was spare-made, dark, and had high cheek bones.  She spoke the Choctaw language some, but was not much of a talker.  Witness had heard Keziah and Fleming talk of living in Kentucky.  She thought they came to Alabama about 1819.  Witness thought Elizabeth Brashear died in Texas somewhere.  Witness did not know whether Keziah was recognized by her neighbors as part Indian, or considered as being possessed of Indian blood in the neighborhood in which she resided.  Jim Brashear, the deaf and dumb man, died in Mississippi.  Ben Brashear she did not know.  Witness knew nothing as to the attempted compliance with the Treaty.  (Rec., p. 820.)

NOTE;–Witness’ memory is at fault as to the place where Elizabeth died.

Louis Dumas

This applicant is forty-five years of age, and is the son of Mary A. E. Dumas and J. P. Dumas.  As he “figures it out,” he has one-sixteenth or one-eighth Choctaw blood, his father and mother both having that blood.  Keziah Thompson and Fleming J. Thompson were husband and wife in 1830, but this witness did not know wheteher they were living in Alabama at that time.  He knew his grandmother Thompson in Texas.  She died when he was about ten or eleven years old.  Witness was a little fellow and was often with her.  He was taught as a matter of family history that he had Choctaw blood in his veins.  He went to ElmGrove Cemetery, in Collin County, Texas and copied the inscription on the tombstone of his grandfather, Fleming J. Thompson.  It was this: “Fleming J. Thompson, born January the 3rd, 1797, died August the 30th, 1872.  This world is a little matter.  Was born in Mecklenburg District, Virginia, came to Kentucky and married; thence to Alabama; thence to Texas , which shows a pioneer life.  He also copied the inscription on Keziah’s tombstone, which was as follows; “Born October the 28th, 1797, died February the 8th, 1870.  I have fought a good fight;  I have finished my course;  I have kept the faith.”  (Rec., p. 632.)

This applicant again appeared before the Commission to testify with regard to the way in which he happened to find the testimony of Tobias Edwards.  He said that in October, 1901, he was on a hunt on Boggy Bayou, in the Indian Territory, and

Dixie Dumas Connolly

This applicant, forty years of age, is a daughter of Jackson D. Dumas.  She lives at Fairland, in the Indian Territory.  She had been told that her grandmother.  Elizabeth Dumas, attempted to comply with the treaty before Colonel Ward, but was refused.  This was in the history of her family.  Witness knew of witnesses who had appeared before the Dawes Commission and testified on this point.  (Rec. p. 515.)

Scott S. Dumas

This applicant is fifty-one years of age and a son of J. P. Dumas, who was a son of Elhanan and Elizabeth.  His mother was M. A. E. Thompson, a daughter of Keziah, who married Fleming J. Thompson, the said M. A. E. Thompson and J. P. Dumas being first cousins, as has been heretofore set forth in this brief.  The witness exhibits certified copy of the marriage certificate showing that Fleming J. Thompson and Keziah Brashear were married in Kentucky, in 1818.  The witness manes many of the descendants of John and Nancy Jane Brashear.  He had not personally heard his mother claiming Choctaw blood, but knew that it was family history that his treat grandmother was one-fourth Indian and the they lived in Alabama.  He knew Keziah Thompson, but did not know the Christian mane of his great grandmother or great grandfather.  He thinks his grandmother and his grandfather Thompson died in Texas in the “70’s”.  His father, James P. Dumas, was born in 1820, in South Carolina.  His mother, M.A.E. Thompson was born in 1824.  His grandmother, Keziah Thompson, was seventy-three years of age at the time of her death, was of dark complexion and her hair was black.  She was rather slender as the witness remembers her.  Witness’s mother and father were married about April, 1841.  His father was born in South Carolina and moved to Alabama.  His mother was born in Fayette county, Alabama.  December 26, 1824, and lived there until after she married, and then moved to Texas shortly after marriage.  The history that witness got was that his grandfather Thompson and wife cam from Kentucky to Alabama, were living in Alabama in 1819, and continued to live there until 1844, when they moved to Mississippi and thence moved to Texas, in 1857.  This information was given to him by his mother and he wrote it out.  At one time it was published as a kind of family history.  The records of the marriage of this applicant’s father and mother had been burned, but his father had been a soldier in the Mexican War, and in seeking a pension for his mother, he obtained from his uncle an affidavit as to the marriage of his father and mother which was filed in the Pension Office.  Numerous witnesses in the Record have testified to J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas being married.  Witness’s mother died August, 1901.  (Rec., pp. 1, 11, 12.)

Lena Fulton

This applicant is thirty-two years of age and a grand-daughter of J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas.  It had always been understood in her family that her great grandmother, Keziah Thompson, had one-fourth Indian blood.  She had heard her grandmother, Mary A. E. Dumas, make this statement.  (Rec., 544.)

Dan H. Dumas and Others

This witness, fifty three years old, is a son of James P. and Mary A. E. Dumas.  He knows that ther was Choctaw blood in the family, coming from his grandmother, Keziah, and her sister, Elizabeth, but did not know the amount.  The fact of Choctaw blood was just handed down to the children of J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas verbally.  Mr. And Mrs. Dumas never cared to talk about it.  They did not want their children to mix up with the full bloods, and did not think it was best for their children to move into the Indian Territory, and at the time it was not deemed to be of much worth anyway.  Witness had heard that Keziah’s Indian blood was one-half, but did not know.  Witness had never seen Elizabeth; he knew Keziah.  Witness’s father was born in South Carolina in 1820, in the Greenville District; he went from there to Alabama or Mississippi.  Witness’s mother was born in 1824.  His father and mother married somewhere about 41, 2, or 3, and then they came to Texas, where his mother died on the 8th of August, 1901.  His father died in February, 1875.  (Rec., p. 574.)

Victoria J. Pierce

This applicant, forty-seven years old, is a daughter of J. P. and M. A. E. Dumas.  She says Keziah Brashear, her grandmother, was born in 1797, and died in 1870, she was married in Kentucky.  Witness thinks she was not born there.  She lived in Alabama; must have been living there when witness’s mother was born, which was on the 26th of December, 1821.  Witness’s mother was born in Alabama near the Mississippi line.  Witness is reasonably sure that her grandmother, Keziah Brashear, did live in the old Choctaw Nation in Alabama in 1830.  Witness does not know whether any of her ancestors attempted to comply with the Fourteenth Article.  (Rec., p. 614.)

Belle Leslie

This applicant, thirty-three years of age, is a daughter of J. P. and Ma. A. E. Dumas.  She says her grandmother, Keziah, was living in Alabama, in Fayette County, near the Mississippi line, at the time of the marriage of her mother in April, 1841.  Her mother was born in Fayette County, Alabama, and her father said he was born in South Carolina.  Her mother’s parents were living in Alabama in 1824, when her mother was born, and continued residing there and in Mississippi until they moved to Texas.  The witness knows nothing of the attempted compliance with Article Fourteen.  (Rec., p. 699.)

John F. Sanders

This applicant, fifty-eight years of age, is a son of Nancy Jane, the daughter of Keziah.  Witness was born in Calhoun county, Mississippi, and moved to Texas in 1854.  Keziah Brashear, his grandmother, was living in Fayette County, Alabama in 1830.  Witness’s mother, if living at the time of testifying, would be seventy or seventy-two years of age, and she was born in Fayette County, Alabama.

Q.    “Do you know if any of your ancestors ever complied or attempted to comply with any of the provisions of that Article?”

A.     “I heard them talk about these things, but I have no knowledge of the facts.”—The reference is to article fourteen, (Rec., p. 646.)

Q.    “Do you know if any of your ancestors ever complied or attempted to comply with any of the provisions of that Article?”

A.     “I heard them talk about these things, but I have no knowledge of the facts.”—The reference is to article fourteen, (Rec., p. 646.)

Emsley M. Sanders

This applicant, fifty-six years old, is a grandson of Keziah and a son of Nancy Jane and William T. Sanders.  He knew his grandmother, Keziah; thinks the amount of Indian Blood she had was one-fourth.  He had heard her speak the Indian language, and she told the children it was Choctaw; heard her say a few words; never heard her right along in a conversation.  He had heard her say she could talk Indian when she was with them.  The witness had heard her at one time talking to some man and she said, “ That man has as much Indian blood as I have.”  They talked in English and a little in Indian, and the Indian she used was the same which she had used to the children and told them was Choctaw.  The witness could not say it was Choctaw.

Q.    “You answer my question; were those Choctaw Indians, and was she talking to Choctaw Indians in the Choctaw language?”

A.     “I could not say that is was the Choctaw language.”

Q.    “Were they Choctaw Indians?”

A.  “They said they were.”   (Rec., p. 663.)

Cynthia Jane Dicken

This applicant, fifty-one years of age, is a daughter of Nancy Jane Sanders.  Keziah Brashear, her grandmother, lived in Alabama and Mississippi.  She had one-fourth Choctaw blood.  She heard Keziah speak of living in Alabama; of being in the first settling of it.  She had heard of her speaking the Choctaw language.  (Rec. p. 69r.)

William T. Sanders

This applicant, fifty years old, is a son of the above-named William T. Sanders, who married Nancy Jane Thompson.  He says he knew his grandmother, Keziah.  She lived in Alabama and Mississippi, but he does not know whether she lived there in 1830, and never heard her say whether or not she had Indian blood.  He thinks he has heard her say something about Col. Ward, but cannot remember what it was that she said.  He does not know anything with regard to what was done towards complying with the fourteenth article.  (Rec., p. 700.)

James P. Sanders

This applicant, if forty-five years of age, and a grandson of Keziah.  He knew her, but did not know whether she claimed Choctaw blood.  (Rec. p. 706.)

Missieniah Ellison

This applicant, forty three years of age, is a daughter of Nancy Jane Sanders.  She thinks her mother was born in 1806 and died in 1856. (Rec., p. 712.)

Sue A. Thompson

This applicant, thirty six years of age, is a daughter of James M. Thompson, who was a son of Keziah.  She says she presumes her grandmother, Keziah, was living in Mississippi at the time of the treaty, and the head of a family, because her father was born in 1822.

Q.  Was Keziah Thompson a recognized member of the Choctaw tribe of Indians at the time when this Treaty was made, September 27, 1830?

A.  I suppose she was; I have heard of these things, but I have not paid any attention to it.  (Rec., p. 770.)

Emma C. Cannon

This applicant is fifty years of age.  She is a daughter of E. J. C. Thompson, who was a son of Keziah.  She spells the Brashear name R-ra-shier. Keziah married Fleming J. Thompson.  Witness’s own mother was the daughter of a man by the name of Peter Tittle, who likewise had Choctaw blood in him.  In 1830 , Keziah Thompson was a married woman and living in Alabama. (At one place witness seemed to show that Keziah was living in Mississippi at this time, but upon reading her whole testimony it will be found that it was Alabama and not Mississippi.)

Witness’s grandmother, Keziah, went from Alabama to Mississippi at some time between 1830 and 1845.  Witness thinks Keziah had something like one half Indian blood.  Witness’s maternal grandfather, Peter Tittle, had one eighth.  (It is not important to notice this at this place, as no claim is made under it, but it may be given heed merely as showing the relations of applicant’s family with the Choctaw Indians.  (Rec.,p. 777.)

George Thompson

This applicant, forty-eight years of age, is a son of E. J. C. Thompson.  He says his father was born in Alabama in 1820, but does not know at what particular place he was born.  He presumes his grandmother, Keziah Brashear, was the head of the family of children in Alabama or Mississippi in 1830, because his father was born in 1820.  (Rec., p. 798.)

Ida Sandford

This applicant, forty-one years of age, is the daughter of E. J. C. Thompson.  She says her grandmother, Keziah, was living in Mississippi or Alabama in 1830.  (Rec., p. 812.)

Lula Thompson Noe

This applicant, twenty-none years of age, is a daughter of E. J. C. Thompson.  She thinks her grandmother was living in Mississippi or Alabama in 1830, as her father was born in 1820.  Witness knows she was living in one place or the other.  Witness’ mother was born in Alabama, but went from there to Mississippi when she was a child, and her father and mother were married in Mississippi December 4, 1845.  (Rec., p. 820.)

Elizabeth Wood

This applicant is sixty-four years of age, and is the daughter of Jane F. Shipp and the granddaughter of Elizabeth Brashear.  She says her mother had talked a good deal about her family, but that witness’ health had been bad and that she had forgotten a good deal of it.  She says her grandmother, Elizabeth Brashear, was born in South Carolina and died in Alabama.  She was the head of a family there in 1830, in Fayette County or near there.  She lived there a few years and died there.  Witness cannot remember whether her mother said anything to her about Elizabeth Brashear claiming as a Choctaw Indian under Treaty of 1830.  Witness thinks Elizabeth was about sixty five years of age when she died.  (Rec., p. 852.)

(NOTE;–This witness is most probably mistaken, from all the testimony, as to what was the age of Elizabeth at the time of here death, if she died in 1835.)

Sara Jane Thompson

Mistress Thompson is not a claimant, but is the mother of a claimant.  She is fifty-three years of age.  She was the wife of W. J. S. Thompson, who was the son of Keziah.  She had lived forty-four years in Texas, and was born in Alabama in 1838.  She later lived in Mississippi, and them in Texas.  She was acquainted with Keziah and her husband, Fleming j. Thompson.  She became acquainted with them in Mississippi in Chickasaw County.  She knew the children of Keziah.  She knew relations of Keziah Thompson other than descendants as follows:  Mary Brashear, Rachael Brashear and Isabel Brashear, ordinarily called “Is.”  She also knew Jim Brashear and Col. Lawrene Brashear, who were brothers of Keziah.  Jim was a deaf and dumb man.  She did not know Elizabeth Brashear, who married E. W. Dumas.  She knew Keziah and Fleming J. Thompson in Mississippi, first in the year 1848.  They moved from Alabama to Mississippi and from Mississippi to Texas.  Fleming J. Thompson died in Texas and was buried in Elm Grove Cemetery.  If the inscription on his tombstone is as read by Louis Dumas it is wrong, in that Fleming Thompson did not move from Alabama to Texas, but moved from Alabama to Mississippi and thence to Texas.  Keziah Thompson was spare-made, dark, and had high cheek bones.  She spoke the Choctaw language some, but was not much of a talker.  Witness had heard Keziah and Fleming talk of living in Kentucky.  She thought they came to Alabama about 1819.  Witness thought Elizabeth Brashear died in Texas somewhere.  Witness did not know whether Keziah was recognized by her neighbors as part Indian, or considered as being possessed of Indian blood in the neighborhood in which she resided.  Jim Brashear, the deaf and dumb man, died in Mississippi.  Ben Brashear she did not know.  Witness knew nothing as to the attempted compliance with the Treaty.  (Rec., p. 820.)

NOTE;–Witness’ memory is at fault as to the place where Elizabeth died.

Louis Dumas

This applicant is forty-five years of age, and is the son of Mary A. E. Dumas and J. P. Dumas.  As he “figures it out,” he has one-sixteenth or one-eighth Choctaw blood, his father and mother both having that blood.  Keziah Thompson and Fleming J. Thompson were husband and wife in 1830, but this witness did not know wheteher they were living in Alabama at that time.  He knew his grandmother Thompson in Texas.  She died when he was about ten or eleven years old.  Witness was a little fellow and was often with her.  He was taught as a matter of family history that he had Choctaw blood in his veins.  He went to ElmGrove Cemetery, in Collin County, Texas and copied the inscription on the tombstone of his grandfather, Fleming J. Thompson.  It was this: “Fleming J. Thompson, born January the 3rd, 1797, died August the 30th, 1872.  This world is a little matter.  Was born in Mecklenburg District, Virginia, came to Kentucky and married; thence to Alabama; thence to Texas , which shows a pioneer life.  He also copied the inscription on Keziah’s tombstone, which was as follows; “Born October the 28th, 1797, died February the 8th, 1870.  I have fought a good fight;  I have finished my course;  I have kept the faith.”  (Rec., p. 632.)

This applicant again appeared before the Commission to testify with regard to the way in which he happened to find the testimony of Tobias Edwards.  He said that in October, 1901, he was on a hunt on Boggy Bayou, in the Indian Territory.

Consolidated Case Applications

Department of the Interior
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes

Commissioners
Tams Bixby
Thomas B. Needles
C.R. Breckinridge
W. E. Stanley

Allison L. Aylesworth Secretary

Address only the
Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes
Muskogee, Indian Territory, June 1, 1903

The Honorable
The secretary of the Interior

Sir:

There is transmitted herewith the record in the consolidated case of Scott S. Dumas, et al., applicants to the Commission for identification as Mississippi Choctaws, including the decision of the Commission of May 15, 1903.

The above consolidated case embraces the following original applications heard by the Commission:

Name
Number
Scott S. Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 4006
Miles G. LantripM.C.R. 4737
Mary P. Phillips, et al.,M.C.R. 4738
Isom LantripM.C.R. 4739
William T. Brasher, et al.,M.C.R. 4740
Andy Brasher, et al.,M.C.R. 4741
Robert L. BrasherM.C.R. 4742
Albert CollumsM.C.R. 4743
James S. CollumsM.C.R. 4744
Thaddeus W. DumasM.C.R. 5737
Aurelius W. DumasM.C.R. 5726
Alexander Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 6113
Sharkey H. RothM.C.R. 5845
Mary E. Carothers, et al.,M.C.R. 5700
Carrie McConico, et al.M.C.R. 5520
Bernard A. Williams, et al.M.C.R. 5144
Maud Cain, et al.,M.C.R. 5807
Claude A. Grantham, et al.,M.C.R. 5714
James J. Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 5717
Sydney L. Dumas,M.C.R. 5803
Adella Caroline Hardin, et al.M.C.R. 5698
Lula K. Smith, et al.,M.C.R. 5699
Benjamin F. DumasM.C.R. 4521
James D. Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 4524
Ennis Palmer, et al.,M.C.R. 5857
Maud Terry, et al.,M.C.R. 4525
Lottie McCoy,M.C.R. 4522
Jane E. McCrearyM.C.R. 4523
Mary C. L. Hollis, et al.M.C.R. 4222
William H. Hollis, et al.,M.C.R. 4311
Lawrence W. Hollis, et al.M.C.R. 4310
Minnie H. Nicolds, et al.,M.C.R. 4312
Mary C. McLeod, et al.,M.C.R. 4313
Hattie E. Andrews, et al.,M.C.R. 4314
Charlie T. Skinner, et al.,M.C.R. 4315
Ghomas H. Hollis M.C.R. 4309
Blanche G. Merchant,M.C.R. 4223
Lawrence W. Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 5731
Mary A. Wade, et al., M.C.R. 5822
Willie P. Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 5810
John R. Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 5701
Carrie A. Wilkerson, et al.,M.C.R. 5703
Maggie Ida DumasM.C.R. 5702
William P. Mims,M.C.R. 5985
Ransom E. Mims, et al.,M.C.R. 5858
Frank E. Dumas,M.C.R. 5732
Ben M. Dumas,M.C.R. 5811
Edward W. Blakey, et al.M.C.R. 5425
Nannie Black, et al.,M.C.R. 4185
Charles H. Black,M.C.R. 4200
Ammon Wood, et al.,M.C.R. 4202
Willie Wood,M.C.R. 4203
Ellington Wood,M.C.R. 4199
Edna Fry,M.C.R. 4286
Robert B. Shipp, et al.,M.C.R. 4285
Maria J. Crawford, et al.,M.C.R. 4115
Majie J. Crawford Cole, et al.,M.C.R. 4116
Elizabeth Baxter Caldwell, et al.,M.C.R. 4114
Jennie B. H. Calhoun, et al.,M.C.R. 4117
J. M. Crawford, et al.,M.C.R. 4094
Robert H. Crawford,M.C.R. 4164
Edna M. Folliard, et al.M.C.R. 4168
Everett B. Crawford, et al.,M.C.R . 4165
Edwin R. CrawfordM.C.R. 4077
Pinkie Creager, et al.M.C.R. 4169
Fannie Sharp, et al.,M.C.R. 4433
George H. Gresham,M.C.R. 4098
Oliver P. Gresham, et al.,M.C.R. 4095
Robert O. Gresham, et al.M.C.R. 4201
Erma Biglow,M.C.R. 4435
David E. DumasM.C.R. 4651
DeBerry G. Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 4119
Birdie D. Carlet, et al.M.C.R. 4123
Mack O. DumasM.C.R. 4658
Susan M. HendricksM.C.R. 4121
Onia Ann Stephens, et al.M.C.R. 4096
Jackson E. Hendricks, Jr., et al.,M.C.R. 4126
Mary H. Decker, et al.M.C.R. 4122
Helen Martin, et al.,M.C.R. 4097
John W. DumasM.C.R. 5012
Ada B. Ewing, et al.,M.C.R. 4284
Minnie P. DumasM.C.R. 5011
Malinda Blanks, et al.M.C.R. 4118
William C. Blanks, et al.M.C.R. 4135
Robert E. Blanks, et al.M.C.R. 4139
Nora E. BinfordM.C.R. 4125
Birdie A. Wilson, et al.M.C.R. 4134
Albert G. Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 4631
Roxanna Freeman, et al.M.C.R. 4850
Arizona Elizabeth Daniels, et al.M.C.R. 4633
Dixie Dumas Connolly, et al.M.C.R. 4632
Maude Florence Clark, et al.M.C.R. 5713
May L. BrownM.C.R. 5725
Murat Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 5715
Lula A. DumasM.C.R. 5716
Lena Fulton, et al.,M.C.R. 4144
Lauren Scott Cannon, et al.,M.C.R. 4145
Eula Umphress, et al.M.C.R. 4146
Pearl Barron, et al.,M.C.R. 4147
James W. Wheat, et al.M.C.R. 4695
Ivy A. FowlerM.C.R. 4696
Dan H. Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 3766
Eula D. ShivelM.C.R. 4075
Walter W. DumasM.C.R. 4015
James P. DumasM.C.R. 3503
Travis M. Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 4007
Verna J. Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 4140
Laura D. Cole, et al.,M.C.R. 4141
Victoria J. Pierce, et al.M.C.R. 4066
Lee W. T. Herman,M.C.R. 4254
Annie B. Wallace, et al.M.C.R. 4250
Louis Dumas, et al.,M.C.R. 4014
Belle Leslie, et al.,M.C.R. 4067
John F. Sanders, et al.M.C.R. 5445
Nancy J. Whorton, et al.,M.C.R. 5446
James L. Sanders, et al.M.C.R. 5560
Julia A. WellsM.C.R. 5559
Emsley M. Sanders, et al.M.C.R. 5804
Cora C. Bond, et al.M.C.R. 4620
Margaret K. Aston, et al.M.C.R. 4562
Mary Jane Damron, et al.,M.C.R. 5805
William E. Aston, et al.M.C.R. 4583
Vic Damron, et al.,M.C.R. 4619
Cynthia Jane Dicken, et al.M.C.R. 4582
William T. Sanders, et al.M.C.R. 5444
James P. Sanders, et al.M.C.R. 4069
Missieniah Ellison, et al.M.C.R. 4154
Lillie Page, et al.M.C.R. 4155
Walter H. ThompsonM.C.R. 4142
Jeff D. Thompson, et al.M.C.R. 4016
Mary A. Ferguson, et al.,M.C.R. 4772
Vergie J. Powers, et al.M.C.R. 4773
Willie E. Ferguson, et al.,M.C.R. 4774
Alonzo A. FergusonM.C.R. 4775
Sue A. Thompson, et al.M.C.R. 4389
Ada ThompsonM.C.R. 4076
Emma C. Canon, et al.M.C.R. 3414
Winnie D. CanonM.C.R. 3415
Delmer CanonM.C.R. 3761
George Thompson, et al.M.C.R. 3756
George Homer ThompsonM.C.R. 3757
Ida SandfordM.C.R. 3759
Lula Thompson Noe, et al.,M.C.R. 3760
Verner L. DumasM.C.R. 5719
James Don Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 5720
Claude E. Dumas, et al.M.C.R. 5721
Missie E. Biggerstaff, et al.,M.C.R. 5722
Nettie A. WoolvertonM.C.R. 6185
Elizabeth WoodM.C.R. 6268
Eula P. Niswander, et al.,M.C.R. 6342
Laurence L. Thompson, et al.M.C.R. 6373

The Commission has the honor to report that the principal applicants in the several separate applications, their attorneys of record and the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations have been duly advised by letter of the action of the Commission, copies of Said letters being attached to the record.
There is also transmitted herewith letter from Head and Dillard, dated May 28, 1903, with which was transmitted an argument signed by J. G. Ralls and Head and Dillard, attorneys for the applicants, in relation to this case, filed with the Commission subsequent to the rendition of the decision herein.

Respectfully
C. R. Breckinridge
Commissioner in Charge

Through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

Enc. 2 M.C.R. 4006

Note from Kitty:

[Please note that I do not have a copy of nor do I remember seeing the May 28, 1903, letter mentioned above.  Of course, it is quite possible that it was there, and I just missed it. I do not know if the argument supposedly transmitted with it is the 70-page printed brief that was in the file or another document.  The brief is signed Head and Dillard, Attorneys for Sundry Applicants, F. C. Dillard, of Counsel.]



MLA Source Citation:

AccessGenealogy.com. Web. 21 October 2014. http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/brief-for-applicants.htm - Last updated on Nov 7th, 2013


Categories: , , , , ,
Topics: , ,

Surnames:

Contribute to the Conversation!

Our "rules" are simple. Keep the conversation on subject and mind your manners! If this is your first time posting, we do moderate comments before we let them appear... so give us a while to get to them. Once we get to know you here, we'll remove that requirement.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Page Contents

Newsletter Signup

We currently provide two newsletters. Why not take both for a run?

Genealogy Update: We send out this newsletter whenever we feature a new, or significantly updated, collection or database on our website.

Circle of Nations: We send out this newsletter whenever we feature a new (or significantly updated) Native American collection or database on our website.

Once you've clicked on the Subscribe button above you'll receive an email from us requesting confirmation. You must confirm the email before you will be able to receive any newsletter.