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.

Previous | Index | Next

Dawes PacketsFree Genealogy | Indian Genealogy | Dawes Packets