[Senate document 420, 57th Congress, 1st Session]
Go to: Loyal Creek Claims. ... 1863 Refugee Census
At the beginning of the Civil War the Indians of the Indian Territory were
divided in their sentiments of allegiance. A large majority favored the
Confederacy. Those who stood by the Union lost much of their property, and many
of them lost their lives by reason of their loyalty.
At the close of the war it was ascertained that of the loyal Choctaws and Chickasaws
who thus lost property there were 212; of the loyal Seminoles there were 340;
of the loyal Creeks 1,523.
These loyal Indians were driven from their homes to find shelter within the Union lines. The exodus, especially of the Creeks, was a running fight with their brethren who sympathized with the Confederacy, who followed and assaulted them as they journeyed toward Kansas resulting in many being killed and wounded. Their pathway was strewn with their unburied dead, and marked by
their bloody footsteps in the snow.
These loyal Indians furnished about two regiments of soldiers for the Union army. Most of these were Creeks. One regiment, made up wholly of Creeks and a few Seminoles, took part in 21 engagements. One of their number, speaking of the casualties of this regiment, says: "Our dead were as milestones to mark our way through the country."
When the war was over all the so called "civilized tribes" were called to meet commissioners of the United States looking to treaties of reconstruction. The meeting was held at Fort Smith from September 8 to 21, 1865. Delegates from all the tribes and factions were present. The Commission
consisted of D. N. Cooley, then Commissioner of Indian affairs; Elijah Sells, superintendent of southern superintendency; Thomas Wister, a leading member of the Society of Friends; Brig. Gen. W. S. Harney, United States army, and Col. Eli Parker, a New York Indian, and then of General Grant's staff.
During the extended negotiations, running through twelve full days, the
statement was made, and repeated again and again, to all the Indians that the
Government intended, above all other things, specially care for these Indians
who had remained loyal and thereby suffered losses.
Commissioner Cooley says that:
Immediately upon the opening of proceedings the tribes were informed generally of the object for which the Commission had come to them; that they for the most part, as tribes, had, by violating their treaties - by making treaties with the so-called Confederate States - forfeited all rights under them and must be considered as at the mercy of the Government; but that there was every disposition to treat them leniently, and above all a determination to recognize in a signal manner the loyalty of those who had fought upon the side of the Government and endured great sufferings on its behalf.
Again Commissioner Cooley says:
Most of these tribes had advanced far in civilization, and their country was
well provided with good schools and academies. Many of their leading men are to-day thoroughly educated men, of statesmen like views, fully able to express those views in our language, in a manner which can be excelled in few of our deliberative assemblies. Their people were rich in real and personal property, living in the enjoyment of everything needed for their comfort; and considerable wealth had accumulated in the hands of some of them - the slave holders - so that they lived in a style of luxury to which our thriving Northern villages are most unaccustomed. Their crops were abundant, but their chief element of prosperity was stock raising, and vast herds of cattle were in their hands as a means of wealth. (p. 37) Of course, the loyal portions of all of these tribes have suffered most; for they became refugees from their homes, leaving them in the hands of their enemies, and everything that they left was destroyed. A large
number of the loyal Indians of all the tribes entered into the service of the United States, and many of them sealed their fidelity with their lifeblood, while many others are maimed for life. Now that the war is over, the survivors of these loyal bands claim the sympathy and aid of the Government (p. 37).
Referring especially to the Creeks, he says:
The Creeks were nearly divided in sentiment at the opening of the war, about 6,500 having gone with the rebellion, while the remainder, under the lead of the brave old chief Opothleyoholo, resisted all temptations of the rebel agents and of leading men, like John Ross, among the Indians, and fought their way out of the country northward, in the winter, tracked by their bloody feet upon the frozen ground. They lost everything - houses, homes, stock, everything that they possessed. Many joined the United States army.
The chairman of the Commission, during the second day of the negotiations, addressing the assembled delegates from the various tribes, again said:
As we said yesterday we say again, that in any event those who have always been loyal, although their nation may have gone over to the enemy, will be liberally provided for and dealt with.
The loyal parties, especially the loyal Creeks, understood what these promises meant, and on the ninth day the loyal Creek delegation formally filed, in writing, their assent to the proposals of the Commission, the first sentence reading as follows:
We, the delegates of the Creek Nation to this council, have had many talks with
you while in attendance on sessions with us, and know the policy of the
Government toward us, the loyal Creeks.
The result of these extended negotiations in 1865 was a preliminary treaty of peace
in which these Indians acknowledged the jurisdiction of the United States over
them in all things, and the Government gave them assurances of protection. The
parties signed this agreement with the understanding that each tribe should subsequently
send to Washington delegates authorized to negotiate a formal treaty "for
the settlement of all questions of difference arising from the war." In pursuance of this understanding, delegations from each appeared in Washington in January, 1866. Three of the United States commissioners who were at Fort Smith carried on the negotiations in Washington, namely, Commissioner Cooley, Superintendent Sells, and Colonel Parker.
Commissioner Cooley, in his report (1866, p.8), says in negotiating the
Washington treaties four principal points came up for settlement, the third
point being "a fair compensation for losses of property occasioned to
those who remained loyal by the disloyal party."
In all the long negotiations at Fort Smith in 1865, as it is fully set out in
the report of the Commissioner of Indian affairs for that year (pp. 296-312),
there is no suggestion or intimation that, the losses of the loyal Indians should
be paid "by the disloyal party." It is first heard of in January, 1866. And it
will be seen by the provisions of the treaties given below that the disloyal
parties were not eventually required to pay the whole of such losses. It
was provided that they should be paid from tribal funds in the cases of the
Choctaws and Chickasaws, and from the proceeds of sales of ceded lands in the
cases of the Seminoles and Creeks. In other words, the funds of the whole tribe
were used, and thus the loyal Indians contributed toward paying their own
claims.
Here is the provision in the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty:
ARTICLE XLIX. And it is further agreed that a commission, to consist of a
person or persons to be appointed by the President of the United States, shall
be appointed immediately on the ratification of this treaty, who shall take
into consideration and determine the claim of such Choctaws and Chickasaws
as allege that they have been driven during the late rebellion from their
homes in the Choctaw (and Chickasaw) relations on account of their adhesion
to the United States, for damages, with power to make such award as may be
consistent with equity and good conscience, taking into view all
circumstances, whose report, when ratified by the Secretary of the Interior
shall br final and authorize the payment of the amounts from any moneys of
said nation in the hands of the Unites States as the said commission may
award. (14 Stat. L, 780)
In the Seminole treaty, which is found in 14 Stat. L., 755, the third article
provides for the cession of the whole reserve (2,169,080 acres) to the United
States at the rate of 15 cents per acre, giving a fund of $325,362. Then in the
same article there is ceded to the Seminoles 200,000 acres which the
Government had just secured from the Creeks, and for which they had agreed to
pay 30 cents an acre, but which tract is charged up to the Seminoles at 50
cents an acre, or an aggregate of $100,000. This amount been deducted from
the price of the Seminole reserve leaves a balance due the tribe of $225,362. This last amount, by said third article, is then parceled out for the purchase of stock, for agricultural
implements, for a permanent school fund, etc., until there are only $50,000 left. The article then concludes:
The balance, fifty thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be
necessary to pay the losses ascertained and awarded as hereinafter
provided, shall be paid when said awards shall have been duly made and approved
by the Secretary of the Interior. And in case said fifty thousand dollars shall
be insufficient to pay all said awards, it shall be distributed pro rata to
those when claims are so allowed; and until said awards shall be thus paid,
the United States agree to pay to said Indians, in such manner and for such
purpose as the Secretary of the Interior may direct, interest at the rate of
five per centum per annum from the date of the ratification of this treaty.
Following this comes Article IV, which provides the machinery for ascertaining the
losses of the loyal Seminoles, and is as follows:
ARTICLE IV. - To reimburse such members of the Seminole Nation as shall be duly
adjudged to have remained loyal and faithful to their treaty relations to the United
States, during the recent rebellion of the so-called Confederate states, for
the losses actually sutured by them thereby, after the ratification of this
treaty, or so soon thereafter as the Secretary of the Interior shall direct,
he shall appoint a board of commissioners, not to exceed three in number, who
shall proceed to the Seminole country and investigate and determine said
losses. Previous to said investigation the agent of the Seminole Nation shall
prepare a census or enumeration of said tribe and make a roll of all Seminoles
who did in no manner aid or abet the enemies of the Government, but remained
loyal during said rebellion; and no award shall he made by said commissioners
for such losses unless the name of the claimant appear on said roll, and no compensation
shall be allowed any person for such losses whose name does not appear on said
roll, unless said claimant within six months from the date of the completion of
said roll, furnishes proof satisfactory to said board, or to the Commissioner
of Indian affairs, that he has at all times remained loyal to the United States
according to his treaty obligations. All evidence touching said claims shall be
taken by said commissioners, or any of them, under oath, and their awards made,
together with the evidence, shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs for his approval, and that of the Secretary of the Interior. Said
commissioners shall be paid by the United States such compensation as the Secretary
of the Interior may direct. The provisions of this article shall extend to and
embrace the claims for losses sustained by loyal members of said tribe,
irrespective of race or color, whether at the time of said losses the claimants
shall have been in servitude or not; provided said claimants are made members
of said tribe by the stipulations of this treaty. (14 Stat. L., 757.)
Now we come to the Creek treaty, found in 14 Stat.,785. In the third article
the Creeks cede to the United States the west half of their reserve - 3,250,560
acres. They are to be paid at the rate of 30 cents an acre, aggregating
$975,168. All this fund is disposed of by said third article in various ways,
except $100,000. As to this latter amount the article provides:
One hundred thousand dollars shall be paid to soldiers that enlisted in the
Federal army and the loyal refugee Indians and freedmen who were driven from
their homes by the rebel forces, to reimburse them in proportion to their
respective losses.
Article IV provides how the losses of the loyal Creeks are to be ascertained,
and reads as follows.
Article IV. Immediately after the ratification of this treaty the United
States agree to ascertain the amount due the respective soldiers who enlisted
in the Federal army, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, in proportion to their
several losses, and to pay the amount awarded each, in the following manner, to
wit: A census of the Creeks shall be taken by the agent of the United States
for said nation, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and a roll
of the names of all soldiers that enlisted in the Federal army, loyal refugee
Indians and freedmen, be made by him. The superintendent of Indian Affairs for
the Southern Superintendency and the agent of the United States for the Creek
Nation shall proceed to investigate and determine from said roll the amounts
due the respective refugee Indians, and shall transmit to the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs for his approval, and that of the Secretary of the Interior,
their awards, together with the reasons therefore. In case the awards so made
shall be duly approved, said awards shall be paid from the proceeds of the
sale of said land within one year from the ratification of this treaty, or so
soon as said amount of one hundred thousand dollars can be raised from the sale
of said land to other Indians. (14 Stat. L., 787.).
In the case of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, the Commission to ascertain the
losses of those who were loyal was appointed promptly after the ratification of
the treaty, and reported awards for 212 claimants, aggregating $233,008. (See
report on file in Indian Bureau.) Congress provided for the payment of
these awards by an act approved July 25, 1868 (15 Stat. L., 177). To the loyal
Choctaws there was paid $109,742.08 and to the Loyal Chickasaws $150,000,
making an aggregate of $259,742.08 or $26,743 more than the Commission had
found due them. The whole amount was paid out of the trust funds belonging to said
tribes.
In the case of the Seminoles, the Government appointed the required commission
to ascertain and award the losses of the loyal party. They found 340 who
were entitled and whose aggregated losses amounted to $213,888.95. This
commission was appointed and made its report in 1867. (See Senate Report No.
1875, Fifty-fifth Congress, third Session.) The $50,000 which was provided to be paid
to the loyal Seminoles by the terms of article 3 of their treaty
of 1866 was appropriated for and paid from the Treasury of the United States.
(See 14 Stat. L., 319) The balance of their losses were provided for in the
Indian appropriation bill approved May 3l, 1900. (31 Stat. L., 240) The
Senate, acting as a court of arbitration, found that the commission had allowed
"the face value of every claim presented." In view of this fact, the amount
awarded was scaled down 45 per cent, the $50,000 theretofore paid was deducted,
and on the balance was computed 5 per cent interest "from the l6th day of
August, 1866, to March 1, 1899," and $186,000 was duly paid from the
United States Treasury. Thus the total payment to the loyal Seminoles for
their losses during the war has been made from the Government funds.
While the commissioners to ascertain the losses of the loyal Choctaws, and
the commissioners to ascertain the losses of the loyal Seminoles, were appointed
and made their respective reports in 1867 (the next year after the treaties
were ratified), yet the commissioners to ascertain the losses of the loyal
Creeks were not appointed until July 21, 1869 and made no report until February
14, 1870. These commissioners were Brig. Gen. W. B. Hazen and Capt. F. A. Field,
both officers of the Regular army. The census disclosed that while more than
6,000 of the loyal Creeks followed brave old Opothleyoholo from their
reservation into Kansas, only 3,611 returned. An awful mortality! These filed
claims with the commissioners aggregating $5,090,808.50. The commissioners
allowed $1,836,830.41. A cut of about 62 per cent.
The awards were approved by the Commissioner of Indian affairs and a qualified
approval affixed by the Secretary of the Interior. Subsequently there
was paid out to the claimants on these awards the sum of $100,000 from funds
belonging to the Creek tribe. (16 Stat. L. 341) The Indians refused to accept
any portion of this money until assured by the special agent, J. A. Williamson,
that it was simply an advance payment and that the whole of the awards should
be soon paid.
This was in 1870. From that date, thirty-two years, the loyal Creeks have
urged the payment of these claims incessantly. Bill after bill been introduced
and argued before the Indian committees of the has two Houses.
In the twenty-sixth section of the act to ratify the Creek agreement, approved
March 1, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 869), it was finally provided that this "loyal
Creek claim" with some other claims of the tribe, should be submitted to
the Senate for determination within two years from the final ratification of
said agreement.
The second clause of said section 26 reads as follows:
Of these claims the "loyal Creek claim" for what they suffered because
of their loyalty to the United States Government during the civil war, long delayed,
is so urgent in its character that the parties to this agreement express the
hope that it may receive consideration and be determined at the earliest
practicable moment.
Early in the present session a memorial, signed by the venerable Isparhecher,
for himself as a loyal Creek claimant and as attorney in fact for the others,
asking the Senate to take action under the provisions of said section 26, was
introduced by Senator James K. Jones and was duly referred to the Committee on
Indian affairs. Thus the case is before the Senate as a board of arbitration in
pursuance of a law of Congress. and as "the parties to the agreement" mentioned in the 1901 act were the Indians and the United States, the Senate is also under the legal obligation to give the case equitable consideration and determine it "at the earliest practicable moment."
It is now urged that the Creeks have already been paid the full amount provided
for in the treaty; that whatever the commissioners might find the losses to be
they should not be paid to exceed $100,000.
A proper construction of article 4 will not limit the amount to be paid to
$100,000. By an application of the simple rules of grammatical analysis it will
be seen that the article declares that the amounts due these Indians are to be
ascertained by the United States, and the amounts thus awarded are to be paid.
The words of the first sentence to the semicolon are these:
Immediately after the ratification of this treaty the United States agree to ascertain
the amount due the respective soldiers who enlisted in the Federal army, loyal
refugee Indians and freedmen, in proportion to their several losses, and to pay
the amounts awarded each in the following manner.
This statement is plainly and properly subject to the following paraphrase:
The United States agrees to ascertain and award the amounts due the several
Indians in the following manner, and when so ascertained such awards shall be
paid.
The words "in the following manner" are not limitations upon the
amounts to be awarded and paid. They simply relate back to the provision for
ascertaining the amounts due. Such amounts shall be ascertained "in the
following manner:" That is, a census is to be taken and a roll call made
of the soldiers, refugees, and freedmen, and a Commission is provided for,
whose duty it will be to "investigate and determine" the amounts due
the respective refugee Indians, etc. The two central things clearly apparent in
a proper reading of the article are (1) that the losses which these loyalists
have borne shall be ascertained by the machinery set up, and (2) that when
ascertained they shall be paid.
It is neither grammatical, nor logical, nor common sense to construe the phrase
"in the following manner" as limiting the phrase "and to pay the amount awarded each".
This construction is not avoided by the last sentence in the article reading as
follows:
In case the awards so made shall be duly approved, said awards shall be paid
from the proceeds of the sale of said lands within one year from the
ratification of this treaty, or so soon as said amount of one hundred thousand
dollars can be raised from the sale of said land to other Indians.
In the light of that portion of the article which precedes this last sentence, the only
proper meaning to give it is that it fixes the fund from which the awards shall
be paid, and the time when they shall be paid. They are to be paid from the
proceeds of the sale of the lands, and as soon as $100,000 can be realized from
such sales. If the proceeds of the sale of, the lands made within a year are insufficient
to pay the awards, then, and in that event, they are to be paid so soon as the
amount of $100,000 can be raised from such sales.
That the $100,000 was not intended to cover all losses which might be found and
awarded by the Commission is apparent from examining the Seminole treaty. The
facts on which the two treaties were based were exactly alike. The Creeks and
Seminoles were neighbors and related. In both tribes there was a division of
sentiments at the beginning of the war. There was a loyal party in each, the
only difference being that there was more Union sentiment among the Creeks. The
loyalists in both cases lost their property. Both parties attended the
negotiations at Fort Smith and heard and accepted the promises made to them by
the Cooley Commission. Three of this same Commission negotiated the Washington
treaties of 1866. They knew what they had promised the loyal Indians the
previous winter. If they were honest men, they intended as nearly as possible
to make the promises good. In the Seminole treaty the language is clear; there
is no ambiguity, no chance for double construction. The United States promised
in straight forward language to ascertain the losses of the loyal party and to
pay them whatever was awarded.
Fifty thousand dollars was set aside (just as the $100,000 was in the Creek
treaty) with which to make payments so far as that amount would go. If it fell
short the balance was to be paid with interest. The $50,000 paid the Seminoles
25 per cent of their awards; the $100,000 paid the Creeks 5 per cent of theirs.
Now, can it enter the mind of any man that Cooley, and Sells, and Colonel Parker,
having just completed such a treaty with the Seminoles, a treaty in keeping
with the promises which they had made but a few months before immediately set
about the construction of a treaty with the Creeks that should be less just? If
these commissioners on the part of the United States intended to pay the loyal
Seminoles in full, with interest on delayed payments, and leave the loyal
Creeks to take 5 per cent or whatever per cent the $100,000 would pay on their
awards without interest then they disgraced and debauched their offices, and
Congress should remedy the wrong. But it is not at all necessary to make such
an assumption as to the commissioners, or such a construction of the Creek
treaty.
Assuming, as we certainly do, that the commissioners were honest in drawing
both treaties and meant to do equal justice to both parties we have the
Seminole treaty as the index to the intentions of both the commissioners and
the Indians. With these two treaties in hand, and keeping in mind the rule of
the Supreme Court that "Indian treaties should be construed as understood by
this unlettered people", and the other rule of construction laid down in
Hanenstein v. Lynham (100 U.S., 483 L. ed. 25, 628), in which the court said
that where a treaty admits of two constructions, one restrictive of the rights
that may be claimed under it and the other liberal, the latter is to be
preferred; keeping these two rules in mind, there would seem to be but one
conclusion possible in disposing of the question before the Senate.
But quite aside from any legal aspects of the matter there is a moral
obligation involved which we are sure the Senate must consider. The claimants
are not simply Indians - wards of the nation - begging aid. They were volunteer
soldiers who sacrificed their property, many of them their lives, to preserve
the Union. The treatment they have received from the hands of the Government is
in most striking contrast with that accorded to other soldiers.
And then the broken and disregarded promises made them should now tell in
favor of an early and liberal settlement.
1. The liberal promises of 1865 were first violated in 1866, when the entire
western half of the reservation was forced from the tribe at 30 cents an acre
as a punishment to the disloyal element, although the loyalists - being about
one-half of the whole tribe - of course had to share the hardship equally
with the others.
2. The promised liberality was again disregarded when the commissioners to
determine the losses tore up the written statements the Indians brought them
and insisted on proofs being made by witnesses testifying in their presence.
This was a hardship and a wrong. The loyal party, or those left of them, were
just returning from Kansas to their homes on the reserve. They were scattered
over a vast territory, some in Kansas, some on the way, and others had just
reached the desolated places, once their homes. Many witnesses were dead, and
all the living were wholly impoverished. How under these circumstances could
the claimants bring before the commissioners the living witnesses of their
losses? Some gave up the attempt to prove their claims, while others were only
able to prove a few items of their actual losses. They should have been aided
to get their proofs.
3. Again, far from the spirit of the liberal promises made at Fort Smith, the
commissioners cut the claims, as presented, to about 38 per cent of the original
amount; while the commissioners to the other tribes allowed the claims presented in full.
4. There was also paid on the awards, after they were tardily announced, but 5
cents on the dollar, while the loyal Choctaws and Chickasaws were paid in
full, and the Seminoles were paid 25 cents on the dollar.
5. The whole tribe was forced to divide their lands and funds with their former
slaves, another punishment for disloyalty which was equally imposed on
the loyal.
Thus it is true that the Creeks who went with the Confederate government, and
who joined and fought with the Confederate army, have fared better than those
who braved every thing for the Union cause. Neither their loss of property nor
the loss of life among the helpless ones was nearly so great with the disloyal
as with the loyal party.
The loyal Creek claimants are beginning to feel that in a way they have been
put off, and are being put off because there are so many of them; they are not
paid because their ascertained losses are so great; that if, like the Choctaws
and Chickasaws, their tribe had all joined the Confederacy, except a very few,
they, the loyal ones, would have fared better.
To show how the Indians themselves understood the terms of the treaty, we add
as exhibits: (1) The last memorial of ex-Chief Isparhecher who is a full-blood
Creek, and himself a claimant; (2) the affidavit of David M. Hodge, who was the
official interpreter of the Creek Nation, appointed by the United States Indian
agent at the time the treaty of 1866 was submitted to the Indians for
ratification; (3) an affidavit of Isparhecher; (4) an affidavit of Con-chartimicco,
another full-blood Creek, who says he knows the claimants, having "mixed
with them a great deal;" (5) an affidavit of Gen. Pleasant Porter, the
present chief of the nation, and not of the loyal party; (6) an affidavit of
George Alexander, another "disloyal" Creek; (7) of L. C. Perryman,
an intelligent and educated man, who has been judge of the Coweta district, and
member of the house of warriors; and (8) of Thomas Perryman, a brother of the
latter, and a minister of the gospel among his people.
All these witnesses, who speak generally for the whole Creek Nation, as well as
for themselves are intelligent and honest men. Two of them, the present
capable chief and Mr. Alexander, were in the Confederate army, and have no
material interest in the claims.
Add to this sworn testimony the fact that when General Williamson as the disbursing
agent of the United States, undertook to pay these claimants, in 1870, the
$100,000 already mentioned, the Indians refused to take any portion of it until
assured by him that it was only a payment on account and the balance of the
awards should be paid in full at an early date and there can be no question
as to how the Indians understood the treaty. They understood and believed that
they were to be paid by the United States just as the Seminoles have been paid
in full for all their losses.
In another paper we have raised the question that the awards rendered by
the commission of our own appointment, in pursuance of the treaty provisions
would, in a court, be held as final adjudications binding upon the Government.
To this point, which we believe lawyers will consider well taken, we cited
Wright v. Tebbitts (1 Otto, 252). But we realize that we now appeal to the
lawmaking power, and not to the courts, and believe that the sense of
obligation arising on the contract made with the claimants, and the decisions
which Congress has already made in similar cases (Choctaws, Chickasaws, and
Seminoles), will furnish abundance of reason for favorable action on the
petition of these long-waiting and long-suffering Indians. There is also added
as an exhibit, a copy of the awards made by General Hazen and Captain Field.
The simple history of these claims, culminating in these findings, is the
strongest argument we can make for their allowance.
Considering, then, the large amount paid the loyal Choctaws in proportion to their
numbers, and the promptness with which their losses were ascertained and
adjusted, and the liberal provision made the Seminoles, it seems that the
Creeks should now have the full amount set out in the awards (after deducting
the amount of $100,000 already paid), and that to this amount should be added
interest at the same rate as that allowed the Seminoles.
The account would then stand:
Amount awarded, less $100,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,736,830.40
Interest at 5 per cent from January 1, l866, to January 1, 1902, a term
of thirty-six years --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $3,126,294.00
Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $4,863,124.40
S. W. PEEL,
Attorney for Claimants
J. H. McGowan, Of Counsel
To the Senate of the United States of America:
Your petitioner, Isparhecher, ex-chief of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of
Indians, a loyal Creek, who lost property during the civil war, on behalf of
himself, as a loyal Creek claimant and as attorney in fact for all the other
loyal Creek claimants, most respectfully petitions your honorable body to
proceed as provided in section 26 of an act entitled "An act to ratify and
confirm an agreement with the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians, and for
other purposes," approved March 1, 1901, as soon as practicable to
investigate the claims of the loyal Creek Indians for property lost by them in
the war of the rebellion, and determine the amount due said claimants for said
losses; also to determine the amount due the Muskogee (Creek) Nation as a
reimbursement for money paid on said claims out of Creek money.
Your petitioner further represents that when the civil war between the States
broke out the Creek people were living peaceably and quietly on their
reservation in the Indian Territory, situate upon the border of the hostile
States, feeling well protected under treaties with the United States; that they
had a civil government well organized for their local protection of life,
liberty , and property; the Creek people had long since adopted the habits
and customs of civilized life, and by their energy and industry had accumulated
a large amount of property, consisting of farm improvements, farm implements,
horses, mules, cattle, sheep, hogs, etc. Your petitioner further represents
that the Creek people, like others living on the border, were divided in
sentiment on the civil war, then raging between the North and South. Many
cast their fortunes with the South, while others remained loyal to their
treaty stipulations and to the Government of the United States. Many enlisted
as soldiers in the Union army, while others became refugees. In consequence of
their loyalty they were compelled to abandon their homes and property and flee
to the Union cause for protection. While absent serving as United States
soldiers many of their homes were despoiled, their live stock captured and
driven off by the enemy, none of which was ever restored to them.
Your petitioner further represents that after the war closed a new treaty was
made between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians known
as the treaty of 1866 (see page 785, Stat., vol. 14), in the fourth article of
which treaty it was agreed that all the loyal Creek Indians who enlisted in the
army of the United States, loyal refugees, freedmen, should be paid the amount
awarded each for their losses sustained during the war. It being further
provided that the superintendent of Indian affairs for the southern Superintendency,
and the agent of the Creek Nation, one of whom was F. A. Fields, captain
in the United States army, the other Brevet Maj. Gen. B. F. Hazin, also of the United
States army, were to investigate and examine all claims for property so lost
during said war by said loyal Creeks, etc., and report their findings to the honorable
Commissioner of Indian affairs and the honorable Secretary of the Interior.
Your petitioner further represents that said officers did most thoroughly
examine the claims presented to them for lost property; examined many witnesses
as to the loyalty of the claimants, the character and value of the property
lost, and after full examination of many witnesses face to face, when the subject-matter
was fresh, allowed only about 36 per cent of each claim, and for that amount by
them awarded reported the same to the honorable Commissioner and Secretary as
provided in said treaty of 1866.
Your petitioner further represents that the aggregate of said awards, after the
heavy scaling, amount to over $1,800,000. That afterwards the United States
caused to be paid on said awards the sum of $100,000, which amount was paid pro
rata on said awards, and the remainder, though more than thirty years have
passed, still remains wholly unpaid. The $100,000 paid as aforesaid was
charged to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, and was therefore paid with Creek
money.
Your petitioner further represents that on the 8th day of March, 1900, at the
city of Washington, D. C., an agreement was concluded between the United States
and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation or tribe of Indians, of which the following is
apart:
" 26. all claims of whatsoever nature, including the 'Loyal Creek claim'
under article four of the treaty of eighteen hundred and sixty-six and the
'Self-emigration claim' under article twelve of the treaty of eighteen hundred
and thirty-two, which the tribe or any individual thereof may have against the
United States, or any other claim arising under the treaty of eighteen
hundred and sixty-six, or any claim which the United States may have against
said tribe, shall be submitted to the Senate of the United States for
determination; and within two years from the ratification of this
agreement the Senate shall make final determination thereof; and that in the
event that any sums are awarded the said tribe, or any citizen thereof, provision
shall be made for immediate payment of same. "
" Of these claims the 'Loyal Creek claim,' for what they suffered because
of their loyalty to the United States Government during the Civil War, long
delayed, is so urgent in its character that the parties to this agreement express
the hope that it may receive consideration and be determined at the earliest practicable
moment. "
Your petitioner further represents that said agreement was duly ratified by the
Congress of the United States and approved on the 1st day of March, 1900, and
duly and regularly ratified by the National Muskogee (Creek) council as stipulated in said agreement in May, 1901, which act of ratification was duly
approved by the President of the United States according to law. The agreement
is therefore now in full force.
Therefore, your petitioner, as ex-chief of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of
Indians, and one of the loyal Creek claimants, and as the attorney in fact for
the others, most earnestly and respectfully prays that your honorable body
proceed as soon as practicable to examine all of said claims, and to award to them
the amount due, and to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation the $100,000 to reimburse
said nation for the amount paid on said loyal Creek claim out of the money
belonging to other people. And inasmuch as the officers and agents of the Government,
after a most rigid and careful examination of each claimant of the loyal Creeks
for lost property during the civil war, not only of the claimant himself, but a
vast number of witnesses, examined face to face at a time when the facts were
all fresh in their memory, questioning them as to the loyalty of the
claimant, the kind and character of the property lost, and its market value,
and after due deliberation, only allowed about 56 per cent of each claim, your
petitioner hopes and prays that your award will be for the full amount
awarded each claimant by said officers, with interest thereon, and to reimburse
the Creek Nation the $100,000 paid on said award out of Creek money.
And your petitioner will ever pray, etc.
Isparhecher,
Ex-Chief Muskogee (Creek) Nation, for Himself as Loyal
Creek Claimant, and as Attorney in Fact for Others.
DAVID M. HODGE, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is David M. Hodge.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am now 58 years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. At Tulsa, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, in the Indian Territory.
Q. How long have you resided and lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, in the Indian Territory?- A. All my life; was born and reared in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory, and lived with the Muskogee (Creek) people all my life.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. What offices, if any, have you held in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A.
I have held and filled many offices of trust in said nation-to wit, member
of the house of warriors two terms, a member of the house of kings one term,
and have been delegate of the nation to Washington a number of times. Have also
been United States interpreter for the Creek Nation a number of times in
connection with their treaties and negotiations with us.
Q. Were you residing and living with the Muskogee (Creek) people, in
said nation when the treaty between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of 1866 was made?- A. I was.
Q. After the treaty of 1866 was made was it submitted to the Muskogee
(Creek) people for ratification?- A. It was.
Q. If you were acting at that time in an official capacity, please state
what it was.- A. I was at the time the official United States interpreter
for the Creek Nation appointed by the agent for the United States, and
interpreted the treaty of 1866 to the Muskogee (Creek) people when it was
submitted to them for ratification.
Q. When the treaty of 1866 was ratified by the Muskogee (Creek)
people, what was their understanding, also your understanding, of the
provisions of that treaty in regard to the loss of the property of the loyal
Creek Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugees
and freedmen, during the war of the. rebellion?- A. The Muskogee (Creek)
Indians all believed and understood at the time the treaty of 1866 was ratified
by them that the United States was to pay the loyal soldiers that had enlisted
in the army of the United States, loyal refugees and freedmen out of the Treasury
of the United States, for all the property they lost during the civil war. They
believed then, and always since, that the losses of said soldiers loyal
refugees and freedmen, were to be investigated by the officers of the United
States named in the treaty of 1866, and that the awards reported by them for
such losses would be paid by the United States.
Q. What, if anything, was done by the United States, or its officers,
after the treaty of 1866 was made, relative to finding out the amount due the loyal
Creek soldiers, refugees and freedmen, as provided for by that treaty, looking
toward the adjustment and payment of the same?- A. In accordance with the
fourth article of said treaty, the United States Government designated Capt. F.
A. Field agent for said Muskogee (Creek) Nation, and Gen. W. B. Hazen,
southern superintendency, to investigate said claim, find the names of the
claimants and amount of the claims of the loyal Creek soldiers, refugees and
freedmen, and I, being the official interpreter for the United States, it was
my duty to interpret for the claimants to the commission, in their adjustment
of these claims, and I did so act and interpret for them, and each claimant was
sworn, together with other witnesses, and testimony taken, and each claim
separately investigated, and during the investigation, on account of the
absence of General Hazen, Lieutenant Joslin was designated by General Hazen to
act for him as-his special representative in the taking of the testimony, and
upon this testimony, so made and taken, Capt. F. A. Field and General Hazen
afterwards made their finding, as per their report.
Q. How much, if you know, did the officers named in the treaty of 1866
report was due the loyal Muskogee (Creek) soldiers that had enlisted in the
army of the United States m the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and
freedmen?- A. The officers named in the treaty of 1866 reported their
findings that the losses of property sustained by the Indian soldiers that
enlisted in the army of the United States refugees and freedmen, aggregated
something over $1,800,000. The exact amount claimed by the claimants was over
$5,000,000. The exact total amount of the claim as presented, according to
itemized statements of each claim was $5,090,808.50. Each claim was upon
said investigation cut down from one-half to two-thirds, and sometimes more,
and the sum total of the account allowed and certified by Captain Field and
General Hazen as the amount due the aforesaid loyal Creek soldiers refugees,
and freedmen, was $1,836,830.41, as appears by the official list of claims and
the amounts awarded as due them on the rolls of the report made, which are now
in the Indian Office, an official copy of which was furnished to me and is
now in my possession.
Q. Has the awards made by these officers of the United States, named in
said treaty, for said losses, ever been paid?- A. No. The United States,
soon after the ratification of the treaty of 1866, paid pro rata on said awards
nearly $100,000, or a total of $99,999.79.
Q. Were you present when any part of the $100,000 was paid?- A. Yes;
I was present when most of the payments were made. I did not see all of them
paid, but very near all, and attached my signature to said roll as interpreter.
Q. Did the loyal Creeks - i.e., those loyal Muskogee (Creek) soldiers who
had enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion;
loyal refugees and freedmen, in whose favor said awards for losses had been
made, accept the $100,000 paid pro rata on their respective awards in full for
their losses?- A. No; they did not. At first they refused to receive any
part of the $100,000, because they understood and claimed that the United
States had agreed in the treaty of 1866 to pay them for all the property losses
sustained by them in the war of the rebellion after several days of
consultation among themselves, and being frequently assured by the paymaster of
the United States that came to make payment that the $100,000 was intended only
as a part payment of their respective awards, and that Congress would
appropriate and pay the balance of their awards at an early day, and upon this
assurance made by the said officers of the United States, and with that belief
and understanding, they accepted the pro rata payment of the $100,000, and
they would not have accepted this money except for this assurance that the United
States would pay the awards in full.
Q. Were you United States interpreter for the Indians at that time, and
did you interpret this assurance of payment of these claims in full as made by
these officers A. I was, and interpreted just what the paymaster stated,
and he stated the same clearly, that this was only pro rata, and that the
Government would surely pay the balance.
Q. Was there any other prominent Muskogee (Creek) Indians present when
the payment of the $100,000 was commenced?- A. Yes; S. W. Perryman, Necco
Hute a (or White Chief), was there also. Many others, but all are dead now.
Q. Are any of these persons named living now?- A. No; they are all
dead.
Q. What do you know, if anything, about the proceedings of the officers
of the United States in their investigation of the losses of property by the
enlisted loyal Creek soldiers in the army of the United States in the war of
the rebellion - the loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. Yes; I was present
when many claims for losses were examined. I acted as interpreter for the
Indians. While the soldiers, refugees, and freedmen were in Kansas during
the war, under advice they made out a list of their property and kept the list, and
when they met the officers of the United States that were designated in the
treaty of 1866 to make investigation of their losses, said officers would tear
up the list of property held by the claimant and then require him to hunt up
and bring personal witnesses to prove his claim. Claimants frequently were gone a
week or more finding evidence. Nearly all the Indian claimants were illiterate
and could not speak English. This caused much trouble and confusion and delay.
All evidence was taken under oath and with great care. And further this deponent sayeth not.
ISPARHECHER, being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Isparhecher.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am now about 77 years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I reside about 15 miles from Okmulgee,
Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Ind. T.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. How long have you lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Ind. T.?- A. Ever
since the Muskogee (Creek) Indians were located on their present reservation. I
don't know exactly how long. I emigrated there from Alabama when the Creeks
moved there.
Q. Are you well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) Indians,
their treaties, traditions, and understanding?- A. Yes; very well
indeed.
Q. Have you mingled and talked with them much about their treaties,
traditions, and understandings, and your tribal affairs?- A. Yes; I have
talked with them a great deal and many times about our public matters and our
treaty relations with the United States, and our understanding of the treaties
at the time they were made and our understanding since then.
Q. Were you living in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation when the treaty was
made between the United States and your people in 1866?- A. I was.
Q. Did you talk with your people at the time of the treaty and know what
understanding they had as to the payment of the loyal Creek claim, by whom it
was to be paid, when it was to be paid, etc.? State all about it, if you know,
and also state your own understanding.- A. Yes; I talked with them a
great deal. It was the subject of a great many councils among our people. The
agent ( we always called him Mad agent) told us that they would pay these loyal
Creek claims. The agent told us there would be an officer, or military man,
that would come to us from Washington and help us make our claim, and that
they would be paid, and we all understood the Government would pay us, and
neither myself nor anyone I ever talked with had any other other understanding
at the time we voted for the treaty nor since, among our own Indians, but what
the Government would pay us. We never understood we were to pay ourselves out
of our own money, or receive any less than the amount found due by the
Commission provided for in the treaty. At the time of the treaty of 1866, the
Government insisted that we must sell to it about one-half of our land - the
western part of our reservation. They insisted of buying the land of us at 30
cents an acre, which they agreed to pay us, and they (the Government) were
to have the privilege of selling that land again. It was to be the
Government's land when we sold it, but we would not sell it to the Government
for them to sell it to white people to settle on; but the Government said
they wanted to sell it after they had bought it of us to other Indians for
other Indians to settle on, and we consented to that. Then they said if the
Government sold this land to other Indians and got money for that that they
would pay $100,000 of that money on the loyal Creek claim, and we agreed to
that; and we never agreed that they should take funds belonging to us as a Nation
to pay these individual Creek claims that the Government ought to pay.
Q. Have you talked to many of your people since that treaty was made in regard
to payment to these loyal Indians in your nation that enlisted in the army of
the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen - for property lost or destroyed
during the war of the rebellion?- A. Yes; I have often talked that matter
over with a great many of them; in fact, nearly all of them. We had public
meetings and they seemed to look to me as one of their leaders.
Q. What was your understanding and that of your people at the time the
treaty of 1866 was made and since as to how and by whom payment was to be made
to those loyal Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees
and freedmen - for property lost by them in the war of the rebellion?- A. I
myself and all the Creek people at all familiar with the treaty of l866
believed at the time the treaty was made and ever since that the United States
was to pay all those loyal Indians that enlisted in the army of the United
States - loyal refugees and freedmen - for property they had lost during the war of
the rebellion.
Q. Has the United States ever paid for the property lost during the
civil war by those loyal Creek Indians that enlisted in the army of the United
States -loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. The United States, soon after the
treaty of 1866 was made, paid pro rata on the awards made by the officers of
the United States for property lost or destroyed of the loyal Creek soldiers
that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and
freedmen - $100,000. That is all that has ever been paid.
Q. Was that $100,000 paid on said awards paid out of the Treasury of the
United States, or was it money that belonged to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?-
A. The United States paid the $100,000 on said awards, but charged the
entire amount to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, and deducted it from money the
United States owed our nation. So the United States owes the Muskogee (Creek)
Nation the $100,000 she paid on said awards, and owes the individual claimants
the balance of said awards, and owes the Creek Nation the other $100,000. When
they got ready to make out the claims, we understood that the United States was
going to pay us in full for our losses; but at the time of the payment, or when
it commenced, I was sick. They made the payment in two places, and when I got
well the paymaster had not gone away, and my people told me all about how they
were going to pay only 5 cents for every dollar allowed us, and that they had
refused to take it. But the man sent to pay us said the Government would pay us
the balance, but that $100,000 was all the money they had now, and they could
divide that up and they could take that now and get the balance after awhile,
and then they agreed to take it. But they said they would not have taken it as
payment in full; and when I got well I went to Okmulgee and drew my money, and
when I drew my money the paymaster told me I could only get 5 cents on the
dollar now, but that the Government would pay the balance after awhile. At that
time I did not know that the Government had taken this $100,000 out of our (the
Creek) nation's money and had charged it to us, but I supposed when I drew the
money that it was money paid by the Government of the United States out of its
own funds and not out of ours.
Q. How much does the United States owe the loyal Creek Indians that
enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen -for
property lost by them during the war of the rebellion?- A. The agents
or officers the United States named in the treaty of 1866 made investigation of
their said losses and awarded to them the aggregate sum of something over
$1,800,000 That amount is still due said loyal soldiers - refugees and
freedmen - for property lost by them during the war of the rebellion, less the
$100,000 paid pro rata on said awards as hereinbefore stated.
Q. What offices, if any, have you held in the Muskogee (Creek)
Nation?- A. I was duly elected and served the Muskogee (Creek) Nation as
principal chief from December 5, 1895, to December 5, 1899; In all, four years
continuously.
Q. What other offices, if any, have you held in said nation? A. Further
this deponent sayeth not..
CON CHARTI MICCO, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth in the above-entitled cause, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Con Charti Micco.
Q. What is our age?- A. I am now __ years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I reside in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation
Indian Territory.
Q. What is your post-office address?-A. It is ----, Indian Territory.
Q. What is your nationality?-A. I am a full-blood Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. How long have you resided in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian
Territory?- A. All my life.
Q. Were you living in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory,
when the treaty of 1866 was made between the United States and the Muskogee
(Creek) Nation of Indians?- A. Yes; and have lived there ever since.
Q. Were you well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) Indians at
that time especially that part of said tribe that enlisted in the army of the
United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen, known
and called the loyal Creeks?- A. Yes; I knew them very well; mixed with
them a great deal.
Q. What was the belief and understanding of the Muskogee
(Creek) Indians at and after the making of the treaty of 1866, as to the property
lost during the war of the rebellion by those Indians that enlisted in the army
of the United States, loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. It was the general
belief and understanding of all the Muskogee (Creek) Indians that the treaty
of 1866 between the United States and said nation provided that the United
States was to pay for all the property lost in the war of the rebellion by
these Muskogee (Creek) Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States
in that war, loyal refugees and freedmen, out of its own Treasury.
Q. Has the United States ever paid said soldiers, loyal refugees and
freedmen, for the property they lost during the war of the rebellion?- A. Soon
after the ratification of the treaty of 1866 the United States paid $100,000
pro rata on the awards before that time made by the officers of the United
States named in said treaty for their lost property in the said war of the
rebellion.
Q. Does the Muskogee (Creek) Indians, and that part of them that
enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal
refugees and freedmen believe and claim that under the treaty of 1866 the United
States still owes them the balance of the awards made them for property lost
during that war?- A. They do, and have hoped and believed for over
thirty years that the United States would pay at least the balance of
the awards made to them for the property they lost during the war of the
rebellion. Further this deponent saith not.
PLEASANT PORTER, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Pleasant Porter.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am --- years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I reside at Muskogee, Muskogee
(Creek) Nation, Indian Territory.
Q. How long have you resided at Muskogee, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian
Territory?- A. about --- years.
Q. How long have you lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian
Territory? A. All my life.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. Have you held any public office in said nation? If so, what office?- A.
I am now the duly elected, qualified, and acting principal chief of
the nation.
Q. What other offices, if any, have you held in said nation?- A. I
have been national delegate to Washington a number of times, a member of the
house of warriors and the house of kings, and held other public positions.
Q. Are you well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) people?- A.
Very well, indeed.
Q. Have you mixed with them and that part of said Indians known there
and designated in the treaty of 1866 between the United States and the
Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians as loyal Creeks?- A. Yes; I have
been rather a public man, and have mixed with and talked a great deal with both
loyal Creeks and others.
Q. Have you frequently talked with that part of the Muskogee (Creek)
Indians who enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the
rebellion - loyal refugees and freedmen, commonly called loyal Creeks in regard
to the meaning of the provision of the treaty of 1866 about the payment
to them for property lost by them during said war?- A. Quite often.
Q. What was their understanding from said treaty as to how and
by whom that property was to be paid for?- A. They always claimed that under the
treaty of 1866 between the Muskogee (Creek) Nation and the United States the
United States was to pay all those Muskogee (Creek) Indians that enlisted in
the army of the United States during the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees
and freedmen, for all the property lost by them during said war, and they all
state that they had the understanding well defined at the time of the treaty,
and that they so understood the treaty. I have never heard any expression to
the contrary made by any of them. And further the deponent sayeth not.
GEORGE A. ALEXANDER, being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in the above matter, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is George Alexander.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am 58 years old
Q. Where do yon reside?- A. I reside at Wetumpka, Muskogee (Creek)
Nation, Indian Territory.
Q. How long have you resided and lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A.
All my life in the Creek Nation, but not at this place all the time.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. Were you a citizen and living in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation when the
treaty of 1866 between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of
Indiana was made?- A. Yes; I was living there and one of the tribe.
Q. Are you now and were you then well acquainted with the
Muskogee (Creek) people?- A. Yes; I knew them quite well and know them quite
well now.
Q. Have you talked with a great many of them since that treaty was made
in regard to the losses of property by the loyal Creek enlisted soldiers in the
army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and
freedmen?- A. Yes; I have talked to a great many of them on that
subject.
Q. What was their belief and understanding as to pay for their several
losses during that war as provided for in the treaty of 1866?- A. They all
claimed and understood that under the treaty of 1866 all the property lost by
the enlisted soldiers of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians that enlisted
in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees
and freedmen, were to be paid for by the United States in full when the amount
was found due as provided by said treaty.
Q What offices have you held in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A. I
was president of the house of kings four years, and was a member of the house
of kings altogether sixteen years.
Q. Are you a loyal Creek claimant?-A. No; I am not. And further
sayeth not.
L. C. PERRYMAN, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth in the above cause, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?-A. My name is L. C. Perryman.
Q. What is your age?-A. I am now 61 years old.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I live at Tulsa, Creek (Muskogee)
Nation.
Q. What is your nationality?-A. I am a Creek (Muskogee)
Indian.
Q. How long have you lived in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation?- A. Over
sixty-one years.
Q. Was you living in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation when the
treaty of 1866 was made between the Creek (Muskogee) Indians and the United States?
A. I was. Also I was with the claimants during the war and know their
feeling in this claim.
Q. What was then and what has been the understanding of the Creek
(Muskogee) Indians as to the property lost during the war of these Creek
Indians who enlisted in the Federal army, loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. All
the Indians at all familiar with the provisions of the treaty of 1866 believed
and so understood that according to that treaty the United States was to pay
the Indians that had enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugee
Indians and freedmen, for all the property they had lost during the war.
Q. When was payment to be made by the United States?- A. When the
amount of the losses of each one was ascertained by the officers of the United
States named in the treaty and their awards made and approved by the
Commissioner of Indian affairs and the Secretary of the Interior.
Q. Was said awards or any part thereof ever paid by the United States?- A.
One hundred thousand dollars was paid pro rata on said awards; that was
all.
Q. Was that $100,000 paid out of the money of the United States?- A. No;
the $100,000 was paid out of money belonging to the Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q. What was the understanding of your people as to the payment of the
balance of said awards?- A. The Creek (Muskogee) Indians understood and
believed that the balance of said awards were to be paid by the United States.
Q. Was you ever principal chief of the Creek (Muskogee) Nation?- A. Yes;
I was duly elected principal chief of the Creek (Muskogee) Nation in the year
1887, and held and discharged the duties of that office for eight years, being
two terms.
Q. Did you ever hold any other office or offices m the Creek Nation? If
so, what were they?- A. Judge Coweta district two years, beginning 1867.
Was elected to the house of warriors of the national council and served
continuously, being reelected until December, 1887, the day I took the office
of principal chief. I served in the United States army in the First Indian Regiment
from November, 1862, to the termination of the war; discharged at Fort Gibson,
Ind. T., and have since lived in the Territory.
Q. During the time you lived in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation were you
well acquainted with your people?- A. I was with my people a great
deal and knew them well, and they called upon me frequently for counsel and advice.
Q. Have you heard many of them express their understanding of the treaty
of 1866 and as to payment of the losses of these Indians that enlisted in the army
loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. Yes; I have heard a great many express
their belief about the losses of the soldiers - loyal refugees and freedmen - during
the late war, and they all understood and believed that under the treaty of
1866 the United States was to pay for said losses. All the property they owned
was taken when they became refugees from their homes to Kansas. Further this witness saith not.
THOMAS PERRYMAN, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth,
manic nothing but the truth in the above cause, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Thomas Perryman.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am now over 60 years of age.
Q. Where do you reside, Tulsa, Ind. T.?- A. I reside at Tulsa, Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q What is our nationality?- A. I am a Creek (Muskogee) Indian.
Q. Where did you live when the treaty of 1866 was between the Creek (Muskogee)
Indians and the United States?- A. I lived in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q. Were you acquainted with many of your people at that time?- A. Yes;
I knew many of them quite well.
Q. What was the understanding of you and your people at that time and
since as to the payment of the loss of property during the late war by the
Creek Indians that had enlisted in the army of the United States - the loyal
refugees and freedmen?- A. We all understood and believed that, according
to the provisions of the treaty of 1866, the United States was to pay for said
losses out of their Treasury.
Q. Have said losses been paid, or any part thereof?- A. The
United States paid $100,000 pro rata on the awards for said property.
Q. Was that payment made out of the money of the United States or of the
Indians?- A. That $100,000 payment was out of money that belonged to the
Indians.
Q. Was that payment believed by you and your people to be a part payment
only?- A. Yes; we all understood that the $100,000 paid on the awards for
said losses to said Indians was a part payment only, and that the balance of said
awards were to be paid by the United States with its own money. Further deponent saith not.
Go to Loyal Creek Claims ... 1863 Refugee Census