Select Page

Topic: Dawes Roll

Decision Rendered William C. Thompson

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. C,, April 7, 1905 Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: April 13, 1004, you transmitted the record in the matter of the Choctaw case of William C. Thompson et al. (M. C. R., 341). Consolidated with said case were the applications of several other applicants, entitled, respectively, “M. C. R., 0258, 6259, 517, 582, 516, 458, 581, 563, 310, 557, 583, and 7124.” All of the applicants above referred to claim the right to be identified as Mississippi Choctaws; also to be enrolled upon the regular roll of Choctaws either by blood or by intermarriage. In your decision of March 5, 1904, you held adversely to all of the applicants above as to their claims for identification as Mississippi Choctaws and for their enrollment as regular Choctaws. Reporting in the matter April 30, 1904, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs recommended that your action in the matter be approved. A copy of his letter is enclosed. Herein will be considered only the rights of the applicants in this case whose application is entitled ” M. C. R., 341.” This embraces the application of William C. Thompson for himself, for his wife, Sarah S. Thompson, for his minor nephew, William R. Thompson, and for his minor grandniece, Sarah T. Stubblefield, for enrollment as above stated. Separate letters will be written...

Read More

Decision Rendered Wiley Adams

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. C., May 21, 1903 The Commission To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: I have considered the proceedings of your Commission upon the application of Wiley Adams for enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. The facts as found by your Commission are that Adams appeared before the Commission in the year 1899, under the act of June 10, 1890 (29 Stat., 821); that he is a white man, and about 1877 married a Creek, the widow of a Chickasaw citizen, and was by special act of the Choctaw council, approved November 0, 1884, admitted to citizenship of the Choctaw Nation, and has ever since been recognized as a citizen of that nation and permitted to vote at their elections. His application was denied by the Commission and no appeal was taken to the courts. He was borne upon the Choctaw census roll of 1890 as an intermarried citizen. The act of June 10, 1890 (29 Stat, 321, 339), provided: That in determining all such applications said Commission shall respect all laws of the several nations or tribes, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, and all treaties with either of said nations or tribes, and shall give due force and effect to the rolls, usages, and customs of each of said nations or tribes : And provided...

Read More

Decision Rendered William Durant

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., July 21, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of June 7, 1905, the record in the case of William Durant and others for enrollment as freedmen citizens of the Creek Nation, with request for my opinion thereon. William Durant is shown by birth certificate in the record to have been born February 20, 1902, to Edmund Durant, who is identified on the 1891 omitted Creek roll. February 3, 1905, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes found and recommended that Edmund Durant should be enrolled as a Creek freedman under the acts of June 28, 1898 (30 Stat., 495, 503), and March 1, 1901 (31 Stat, 861, 870), and that the application of William Durant should be denied. Edmund Durant’s enrollment has not yet been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat, 1071), provides: That the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes is authorized for sixty days after the date of the approval of this act to receive and consider applications for enrollments of children born subsequent to May twenty-five, nineteen hundred and one, and prior to March fourth, nineteen hundred and five, and living on said latter date, to citizens of the Creek tribe of Indians, whose enrollment has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior...

Read More

Decision Rendered Thomas J. Lasley

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., June 19, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received, by reference of June 5, 1905, with request for opinion thereon, the record in the case of Thomas J. Lasley and others for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation. The applicant based his claim of right upon being the son of George Lasley and Sarah (nee Walker), his wife, both of whom were recognized Cherokees. As proof of that right he relied upon a judgment of the United States court of the Indian Territory, northern district, under the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat, 321, 339), on appeal from denial of his application to be enrolled rendered by the Dawes Commission November 6, 1890. A transcript of the judgment admitting him, September 30, 1897, was filed with the present Commission. The Cherokee Nation opposed the application on the ground that it was fraudulently recovered, and adduced a considerable amount of testimony of old acquaintances and relatives of George and Sarah Lasley tending to show that the applicant s alleged parents were married in 1859; that they never had but two children the oldest, a daughter, now living and enrolled, and a son George, born a few months after his father was killed during the war of the rebellion, and that this son died an infant at...

Read More

Decision Rendered Stonewall J. Rogers

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., March 25, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of February 27, 1905, the motion for review and rehearing and accompanying papers in the application of Stonewall J. Rogers for enrollment of his children, Fannie L., Robert K., Mary L., and Henry C. as citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation. October 14, 1887, Rogers, then aged 21 years, with Henry C., his father, a brother, and three sisters, were admitted by the Cherokee national authorities as citizens by blood of the Cherokee Nation. There is no claim or suggestion that this was procured by any fraud or was in anywise without authority of law. Henry C. removed to the nation before December 4, 1894, was on the 1890 census roll, Cooweescoowee district, and died there March 5, 1896. Stonewall J. did not remove to and locate permanently in the Cherokee Nation until January, 1896. At the time of his admission to citizenship in 1887 he was an express messenger on the Southern Railway system on a route between Selma, Ala., and Cleveland, Tenn. He intended to remove to the Territory to locate permanently, and contributed from his wage savings to aid the family in improving a farm held in common, which has improvements said to be worth $2,000, but no act indicative of change of his...

Read More

Decision Rendered Rosella Lewis

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., October 4, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by letter of September 20, 1905, a copy of departmental order of June 13, 1904, fixing September 1, 1904, as the time for closing the rolls of the Muscogee or Creek Nation. My attention is directed to section 7 of the act of June 30, 1902 (32 Stat, 500-501), requiring the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes to enroll all children of parents entitled to enrollment in the Creek Nation born after July 1, 1900, to and including May 25, 1901, living at the latter date, and to the act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat, 1048, 1071), which provides: That the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes is authorized for sixty days after the date of the approval of this act to receive and consider applications for enrollments of children born subsequent to May twenty-five, nineteen hundred and one, and prior to March fourth, nineteen hundred and five, and living on said latter date, to citizens of the Creek tribe of Indians whose enrollment has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior prior to to such children. The letter refers the record in case of Rosella Lewis. My opinion is requested: whether the enactment of the later act of March 3, 1905, had the effect of reviving and...

Read More

Decision Rendered in Richard B. Coleman, et al

Office of the Secretary Washington, D. G., March 27, 1905 Commission To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: August 25, 1904, you transmitted the record in the consolidated case embracing the applications of Richard B. Coleman, Ida C. Walker, Bettie W. Cooper, Bennetta Coleman, Henry A. Coleman, Willie N. Coleman, Richard S. Coleman, Winifred Coleman, Eva F. E. Coleman, Ida May Coleman, Ruth St. Clair Coleman, Richard W. Cooper, and Coleman Carlota Walker for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, and of Eva Coleman and Annie E. Coleman for enrollment as citizens by intermarriage of said nation. In a decision rendered August 8, 1904, by a majority of your Commission, it was held that the applicants herein claiming enrollment as citizens by blood were entitled to enrollment as such. No action was taken upon the applications based upon intermarriage. A dissenting opinion was rendered on the same date by the chairman of your Commission. Reporting in the matter September 28, 1904, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs recommended that the record be returned to you for further investigation. You will note that in the report of the Acting Commissioner, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, the names of Bennetta Coleman, Henry A. Coleman, Winifred Coleman, and Richard W. Cooper are erroneously given as Bennetta Cooper, Henry A. Cooper, Winfield Coleman, and Richard W....

Read More

Decision Rendered Mary and Roy Strickland

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., December 28, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of October 10, 1905, the report from the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes of September 25, 1905, stating his inability to reconcile the decisions of the Department in the Cherokee citizenship cases of Mary and Roy Strickland, March 17, 1904 (I. T. D., 934 and 21GO 1904); January 4, 1905 (I. T. D., 30201904), and May 25, 1905, and of Ora M. Bonds, nee Camp, March 25, 1903 (I. T. D., 14181903). The Commissioner states two specific points, which he asks may be referred to me for opinion, and requests instructions thereon, viz: 1. In adjudicating the right to enrollment of applicants who had not reached their majority on September 1, 1902, and who, prior to that date, had neither an actual nor a constructive residence in said nation, what distinction, if any, is to be made between said applicants admitted to citizenship by an act of the Cherokee national council, commission on citizenship, or supreme court and those admitted to Cherokee citizenship by the Dawes Commission under the act of June 10, 1896, as in case of Roy Strickland, supra? 2. In adjudicating the right to enrollment of applicants who during their minority were duly admitted to Cherokee citizenship, what distinction, if any, is to be...

Read More

Mary Elizabeth Martin Decision Rendered

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. C., March 30, 1905 Commission To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: February 10, 1904, you returned the record in the matter of the application of Mary Elizabeth Martin for enrollment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. This applicant is the child of Walker Martin and Sallie Moore Martin. Martin was formerly married to a Choctaw woman, and Sallie Moore to a Chickasaw man. The applicant was denied enrollment by your Commission under the act of June 10, 1896, and no appeal was taken. In your decision of March 25, 1903, you denied her enrollment. Under date of November 19, 1904, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs furnished a report in the matter, a copy of which is enclosed, recommending that your action be not approved and that the applicant be enrolled as a citizen of said nation. The case was submitted to the Assistant Attorney-General, and in an opinion rendered March 24, 1905, approved by the Department the same day, it was stated in part as follows: There is no evidence in the record before me to show whether applicant s parents, or either of them, were married in conformity with the tribal laws governing their respective intermarriages with their former Indian spouses, nor can such fact be certainly inferred as having been satisfactorily proved. If the applicant s...

Read More

Decision Rendered Mary Ann Riley

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., August 31, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of June 19, 1905, the record in the case of Mary Ann Riley and others, applicants for enrollment as Cherokee freedmen, with request for my opinion “whether the applicants in said case are entitled to enrollment.” The applicants are Mary Ann Riley, born about 1820; her daughter, Mary Hazelrig, nee Riley, born about 1855, for herself and minor children, William A., Jesse, Lacy, Alexander, Joseph E., James M. T., James L., and Fred; Mary Brown, nee Hazelrig, for herself and minor children, Robert Lee and George R. The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes found that: Mary Ann Riley and Mary Hazelrig are mother and daughter, and were the slaves of a Cherokee citizen at the commencement of the rebellion; that they were taken out of the Cherokee Nation during said rebellion and did not return thereto and establish a residence therein within the time specified in the decree of the Court of Claims, rendered February 8, 1890, in the case of Moses Whitmire, trustee, etc., v. The Cherokee Nation et al., for the return of Cherokee freedmen to said nation. The other applicants herein are children and grandchildren of the applicant, Mary Hazelrig, were born since 1866, and possess no rights to enrollment other than as descendants...

Read More

Decision Rendered Lemuel Welcome

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., November 12, 1904 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of July 22, 1904, with request for my opinion thereon, the record in the application of Lemuel Welcome to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for his enrollment as a Cherokee freedman by intermarriage. The applicant is a Negro, born in Ohio about 1855, who first went to the Cherokee country about 1870, and September 19, 1883, under a Cherokee marriage license, married Amanda Williams, who was identified on the 1880 authenticated roll of Cherokee freedmen. Her enrollment by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes was approved by the Secretary of the Interior April 30, 1904. She and the applicant were residents in good faith of the Cherokee Nation at the time of their marriage, and have ever since continuously lived there. The applicant claims right to enrollment by virtue of his marriage, and the question presented is whether one not of Cherokee blood by intermarriage with a Cherokee freedman becomes entitled to be enrolled as a citizen by intermarriage. The right of the Indian nations or tribes to regulate their internal affairs, subject to the control of Congress, has always been recognized by the Government and courts of the United States. Talton v. Mayes (163 U. S., 376, 382-383); Kagama v. United States (118 U....

Read More

Decision Rendered Joe and Dillard Perry

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. (7., February 25, 1905 Commission To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: November 14, 1904, you transmitted report of proceedings had and additional evidence taken in the matter of the applications of Joe and Dillard Perry for their enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation instead of Chickasaw freedmen. November 26, 1904 (Land 80819), the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, reporting in the matter, recommended that Joe and Dillard Perry be declared to be citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, and that the Department direct the transfer of their names from the roll of Chickasaw freedmen to the roll of Chickasaws by blood. A copy of said letter is enclosed. January 20, 1905, the Department referred your report to the Assistant Attorney-General for this Department for his opinion as to whether Joe and Dillard Perry were entitled to enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, and in an opinion therein, rendered February 21, 1905, approved by the Secretary of the Interior the same day, a copy of which opinion is herewith in closed, the Assistant Attorney-General held that Joe and Dillard Perry are entitled to enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation. In accordance with said opinion the Department holds that said applicants are entitled to enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw...

Read More

Decision Rendered James S. Long et al

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. C., February 23, 1906. Commissioner To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. SIR: On January 19, 1905, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes transmitted the record in the matter of the application for the enrollment of Lula F. Long, James S. Long, Joseph Long, and Forbis Long as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, with its decision of January 19, 1905. dismissing the application of Lula F. Long and denying the application of James S., Joseph, and Forbis Long. The papers in the matter were forwarded by the Indian Office March 6, 1905, with the recommendation that the decision of the Commission, adverse to the applicants, be approved. Following the approved opinion of the Assistant Attorney-General of February 19, 1906, the decision of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes is hereby reversed as to all of the applicants except Lula F. Long. Inasmuch as she died prior to September 25, 1902, she is, according to the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat, 641), ineligible to enrollment. Accordingly the action of the Commission dismissing her application is hereby approved. You are directed to place the names of James S. Long, Joseph Long, and Forbis Long upon the final rolls of the citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. Copies of the Indian Office letter and of said opinion are...

Read More

Decision Rendered in James M. Buckholts, et al

Office Of The Secretary, Washington, I). C., February 24, 1904 The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: There is enclosed herewith a copy of an opinion of the Assistant Attorney-General for this Department of February 18, 11)01, in the matter of the application for the enrollment of James M. Buckholts, Rebecca Buckholts, and Alice Dwight, formerly Buckholts, which opinion has been approved by the Department. In accordance therewith your decision in favor of the applicants is hereby affirmed. A copy of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs letter of December 1, 1903, submitting the case, is enclosed. Respectfully, Thos Ryan, Acting Secretary Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., February 18, 1904 The Secretary of the Interior SIR: I am in receipt, by reference of the Acting Secretary, December 5, 1903, of the papers, for my opinion, in the case of James 51. Buckholts and his children, Rebecca Buckholts and Allie Dwight (nee Buckholts), applicants for enrollment as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation. The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes found that James M. Buckholts is the son of William Buckholts, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, who was admitted as such by a judgment of the supreme court of the Choctaw Nation, rendered in October, 1872 (certified copy attached), and Matilda Buckholts (deceased) a noncitizen, and that applicants, Rebecca Buckholts and Allie...

Read More

Search


It takes a village to grow a family tree!
Genealogy Update - Keeping you up-to-date!
101 Best Websites 2016

Pin It on Pinterest