WILSON'S EXHIBIT # 3

(Excerpt from Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the United States. Hearings before a Subcommittee of The Committee on Indian affairs United States Senate Seventy-first Congress Second Session.)

United States Department of the Interior,
Office Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
Washington, May 27, 1929.

Hon. Lynn J. Frazier,
Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate

My Dear Senator: I am very sure that you and your committee will be interested in reading a deposition of Dr. Smith Ely Jelliffe, who testified as a witness in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in certain causes involving the oil and gas lease of Jackson Barnett, and I am inclosing you herewith a copy of said deposition. Doctor Jelliffe is probably recognized as one of the outstanding psychiatrists of this country, if not of the world, and if more is required to demonstrate his qualifications as an expert than is contained in his testimony, I would refer you to Who's Who in America, which contains a very complete statement with reference to his career.

As Doctor Jelliffe made a very thorough examination of Jackson Barnett before testifying as a witness, and as he testifies in much detail and expresses very direct and positive opinions concerning his mental status, which is a subject of inquiry by your committee, I most earnestly and respectfully request that his deposition be incorporated and printed in the hearings of our committee as a part of the statement of myself as Commissioner of Indian Affairs heretofore mare and a part of the hearings.

There is inclosed an extra copy of the deposition, to be available for the members of the subcommittee. 

Yours sincerely,
Chas. H. Burke, Commissioner.

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Consolidated causes No. 216 equity. Jackson Barnett, an incompetent, by Fred T. Hildt, his next friend, complainants, V. Gypsy Oil Co. et al., defendants, and Gypsy Oil Co. et al. complainants, V. Jackson Barnett, defendant.

DEPOSITION

Deposition of Dr. Smith Ely Jeliffe, witness produced on behalf of the Gypsy Oil Co., Cushing Gasoline Co., F. A. Gillespie, F. A. Gillespie & Sons Co., and the Mid-Continent Petroleum corporation, taken before me, the undersigned examiner duly appointed by the court to take such deposition under and by virtue of an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma made and entered on the 27th day of April, 1929. Said deposition being taken & 9 o'clock a. m., April 29, 1929, in the jury room, being one of the rooms in the United States District Court Building designated in the order of the court.

Appearances: Mr. James B. Diggs, of Tulsa Okla., attorney for the Gypsy Oil Co.; Mr. James P. Gilmore, of Tulsa, Okla., attorney for F. A. Gillespie and F. A. Gillespie & Sons Co. / Mr. R. H. Wills, of Tulsa, Okla., attorney for Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation; Mr. George B. Schwabe, of Tulsa, Okla. attorney for Fred T. Hildt, next friend for Jackson Barnett, an incompetent, and C. B. Stuart, guardian at litem; Mr. Louis N. Stivers, of Tulsa, Okla., assistant United States district attorney for the northern district of Oklahoma, attorney for the United States.

Smith Ely Jelliffe, called as a witness, and being first duly sworn and examined at the time and place above mentioned, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DIGGS:

Q. You may state your name, age, and place of residence, Doctor.  A. Smith Ely Jelliffe, 62 years old, and live at 64 West Fifty-sixth Street, New York City.

Q. What is your occupation, Doctor?  A. I am a physician.

Q. What particular branches of the medical science do you practice?  A. I graduated ----

Q. I say, what particular branch?  A. Nervous and mental diseases.

Q. How long have you been in that business, Doctor?  A. I have practiced medicine 40 years, and have always been interested in nervous and mental diseases, but have specialized for about 20 years.

Q. Of what schools are you a graduate?  A. I graduated from the public schools in the city of New York, and then the Polytechnic School in the city of New York, known as the Brooklyn Polytechnic, and took my degree of ...

[skipped page 5861-5870]

... of going to school, and had in later years through his contact with the whites learned to speak English, that it would indicate very distinctly that he was not an idiot, or of very low degree of intelligence, but would indicate he was a man of capacity and intelligence, because picking up a foreign language is not an easy thing to do.

Q. Doctor, do you know Jackson Barnett?  A. I do.

Q. Please state when and the circumstances under which you first met him?  A. I first met him on the 22d day of May, 1927, at the New Willard Hotel in Washington, D. C. I met him by the invitation of Judges James B. Diggs of Tulsa, Okla., and others for the purpose of gaining some information concerning his nervous and mental functioning.

Q. Prior to your meeting him, doctor, did you have a conversation with Mr. Diggs?  A. Yes, sir.

Q. In that conversation will you state whether or not you were instructed that the purpose of that examination was to determine the mental condition of Jackson Barnett, and what we wanted, without reference to any litigation, but your honest opinion as to his exact conditions; that that is the point we wanted settled without reference to any other matter?  A. Absolutely, simply wanted me to examine him and give you a report of my examination independent of anything else.

Q. Regardless of whatever effect it might have on anything.  A. That was indifferent to me; it didn't make any difference to me what questions were involved.

Q. Now in pursuance of your employment by Mr. Diggs you did meet Jackson Barnett and did make an examination of him?  A. I did.

Q. You may state, Doctor, in what condition you found him?  A. I say him on two occasions. I saw him in the morning of May 22, 1927, and spent approximately two and one-half hours with him. I saw him in the afternoon in the same place and spent approximately an hour and a half with him. At the first interview --

Q. Well, before you get to that, Doctor. How was he dressed?  A. He was neatly dressed; he was clean; he was manicured; he was very excellently taken care of so far as his personal appearance was concerned.

Q. Now cleanliness and being well kept is not an indication of mental weakness, is it?  A. No.

Q. You may state whether one of the indications of mental weakness is or is not disregard of the habits of cleanliness and neatness in dress?  A. As a rule, and not only as a disregard of but one might go further and say the inability to allow others to take care of them either. The imbecile and the idiot, or the mentally ill individual ray start out by being taken care of  --- ---- but in a very short time they lose interest; they don't have their clothes buttoned; they get sloppy and dirty, and show distinct indications of an inability to look after the more polite amenities of society.

Q. Slobbering, Doctor, is one of the usual characteristics of a person totally devoid of understanding is it not?  A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the whole time you talked to Jackson did you see sign of slobbering?  A. Not in the slightest; in fact he was very neat.

Q. In idiots and persons totally devoid of understanding there is generally some aroma connected with them?  A. Very frequently; they can not control their urine and they smell.

Q. Did you find any indications of that kind in Jackson Barnett?  A. Not the slightest.

Q. Did you or did you not talk with Jackson Barnett in English part of the time without the aid of an interpreter?  A. The entire morning interview was carried on with Jackson Barnett himself in English, and all his answers were responsive, and we had a very practical and comprehensive interchange of opinions and confidences, and so forth. 

Q. Did you or did you not experience any great difficulty in having Jackson understand you when you used simple language  in your questions and conversation with him?  A. None whatever. If I could myself get into his frame of reference, as it were, into the kind of thought that he himself was using, I had no difficulty whatever in making myself understood, and had very little difficulty in understanding him.

Q. Did you apply any tests of intelligence to Jackson which are recognized as standard in psychiatry?  A. I would answer that question, Judge, by saying that first after being introduced to him by you, and after 5 or 10 minutes of desultory conversation that took place in the room, told him I wanted to make an examination of his heart and his lungs, to which he assented, and that while I was carrying on the physical examination I was also carrying on a mental examination at the same time, because it was quite apparent the best way to carry on such a conversation was to make it as free from technicalities as possible, and to break it up into short fragments of questioning, because that was a much easier conversational and a simpler way to carry it out than to go through a more or less systematic examination. Just for instance when examining his heart I got some ideas concerning his elementary knowledge of physiology, when for instance I tapped his knee jerks and found them to be normal, he remarked the other doctors did that too, and what other doctors, I said, and he said doctors out in California. Doctor Wallace had done that also, which was a fact, three years previous. And he also indicated from time to time that a number of other tests which I carried out had been carried out by other doctors, and sometimes in the preparation of the test he smiled as though he knew what was coming as he had already been through a similar kind of testing previously. So, I went through -- do you wish me to detail the result of the physical examination more particular?

Q. Yes.  A. So I went over him systematically from top to bottom to see what condition he was in nervously speaking, and very briefly I would say these were my results; That so far as the cranial nerves were concerned they were intact; he could smell; he knew the smell of roses and other flowers that I had brought up from the florist downstairs in both nostrils; he was quite keen on smell; his eye sight was good; he could distinguish numbers; could distinguish print, although he didn't read English or any other language; could tell certain figures in newspapers; there was no blind spots; the ocular movements were free and ample in all directions; there was no double vision, no paralysis, and the eye balls were perfectly normal in all their movements. I did notice that he did have a very marked arcus senills in the cornea of both eyes. There was no changes in the eye grounds save the presence of arteriosclerosis. There was other signs of arteriosclerosis in the body. His chest was normal except that he had a slight bronchial irritation; he said he had caught cold two or three days before; his heart was normal, beating from 60 to 64; his upper extremities were normal; there was no paralysis; there was no loss of sensation; there was no changes in the reflex activities. Similarly, the muscles of the trunk functioned all right. As with reference to sexual capacity, that had been all right, but he also make one interesting remark regarding it when he said in regard to its present activities, he said that "when the tree is dying let if fall."

Q. State, Doctor, whether that remark was or was not made in answer to your inquiry as to what he was doing to stimulate or restore his lost or failing sexual capacity?  A. It was a whimsical and rather intelligent and extremely expressive indication in response as to whether he still enjoyed sexual activites; he had stated previously he had had them and had enjoyed them; this came out when I was asking him whether he had a sore on his penis of any kind, and he said he never had had. I will correct the phraseology of the remark he made; he said, "When the tree begins to die expect it to fall." That is the exact phraseology as I wrote it down at the time. I might go on. The lower extremities also were normal, and there were no paralyses and no loss of sensation, and no modification in the reflexes. That was the neurological examination.

Q. In this physical examination none of the conditions you have named indicate imbecility or total want of understanding with the exception of the arcus senilis in the cornea of the eye?  A. That latter would have nothing to do with his mentality. It would only indicate want of nutrition in the cornea of the eye and is an indication of the blood-vessel supply.

Q. Then none of the results that you have found indicate imbecility, idiocy, or total want of understanding?  A. None at all. That is to say he had absolutely no congenital defect; no retardation; no serious disease of infancy, or of adolescence that would interfere with the orderly development of his mental processes.

Q. State whether or not, Doctor, in regard to your question to him in regard to sexual enjoyment, whether his answer that "when the tree is dying expect it to fall," in your judgment evinced, or did not evince a pretty fair degree of native intelligence and understanding?  A. It was a very penetrating and intelligent answer.

Q. Now, Doctor, you may state the psychological effects of your tests?  A. Now, as to the more distinct testing of his mental functions. I can divide those into two sets; First, set of tests which might be said to have more distinct bearing on his mental age, the so-called I.Q. tests; and the other, a series of inquiries which would be of significance as determining his relations to people about him -- namely, what we might attempt to find in the way of a mental disease apart from his more technical school testing. In the matter of the mental-age test I used a well recognized series of questions which have been devised by two French investigators, Binet and Simon.

Q. Right there, Doctor, will you state whether these tests, you say well recognized, you mean by that received as  a standard test by the profession for use of these purposes?  A. Yes, sir; these two investigators were the originators of this series of tests, and from them many developments have flowed.

Q. They are regarded as a standard?  A. They are regarded as very elementary and useful, and are the foundation for all the later tests which are found to be of value for special purposes, vocational tests and occupational tests. I used the 1911 blank used by these two investigators. Now, according to this, I found that he was perfect for 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years; that is to say, he had an I. Q. of 100 practically up to 10 years of age. From 10 to 14, 10 to 12 the tests were spotty -- that is to say, he could answer certain of the questions and was not able to answer certain other questions. At the same time he was also able to carry out a great many adult tests, so that all these tests showed that he was not far from the standards of a school boy about 13 years of age. In fact, from 10 to 13 he would have had difficulties in school, but these tests are not an indication that he was not an intelligent man; they just worked out his school knowledge. But they did show without the slightest doubt that he was not an idiot, which means under the mental age of 4; and that he was not a high-grade defective, which means under the mental age of 8 to 10. Now so far as the second series of tests showed, I used what is known as the Ziehen blank.

Q. Right there, Doctor, is that one of the blanks and series of examinations that is standard in the profession?  A. Yes, sir; that is in the study of mental cases.

Q. That is what I mean.  A. Yes, sir; it is a standard form of examination so that an individual versed in his science reading over the questions and answers, such a series of questions and answers, could come to a conclusion regarding the mental status of the patient, a very definite conclusion so far as his having a psychosis; that is, a mental disease popularly known as insanity.

Q. This matter might go before a jury, Doctor, and they may not know what you mean by psychosis.  A. I just said that psychosis if popularly known as an insanity. Now, the mental questionnaire showed that he was fully oriented -- that is to say, he knew his name; he was about 70 years of age; the year in which he was born was not certain. He knew the present year, 1927; the present month of May; the 22d he was not certain of the exact date, but said it was the last of the month; that he was in the city of Washington, and that he was in a hotel; that he had been there three or four days, which was correct; he knew where he came from; he knew what it was all about; he knew who were around him; he said he wasn't sick, and he said he was there for the purpose of being examined. Those are the general tests for orientation.

Q. Did he show knowledge of his clothes and his cost?  A. Yes, sir; all that came out. We discussed his shoes; we discussed other articles of clothing, and he had ideas concerning their value and merits. Among other things he said he thought the present pair of shoes he had on had cost him $15, which was the fact.

Q. During that examination, Doctor, did you talk to him about his having made a lease on his land?  A. I did.

Q. State whether, without any suggestion on your part or anyone else, he recalled the name of the person to whom he made the lease.  A. He did.

Q. Who did he say the man was?  A. Bartlett.

Q. Did he say where Bartlett found him and asked him to make the lease?  A. He did.

Q. Where did he say he found him?  A. He was down in the field fixing hay.

Q. Did he discuss with you some of his activities prior to that time about working in the field?  A. He did. As I said, this examination was carried on between the physical examination and the mental examination as I found the opportune moment. So while I was discussing about his feelings as to whether he was depressed? Whether excited? What was the attitude of his friends? Then I would put in some of these other questions, which was not specific as to his mental state. He said in fact that he had seen Bartlett and they talked about a lease, and that he agreed to make one with him; whether he signed a lease which was shown to him with his thumb print or with an "X" he was not quite certain, it might have been both, but at least he signed it and made, such a lease.

Q. In the course of your conversation with him did he remember having talked to one Dana H. Kelsey?  A. He did.

Q. Concerning the lease?  A. Concerning the lease; yes, sir; and he seemed to know who Kelsey was; knew that Kelsey had something to do with the Government, and had something to do with the Indian affairs, and was looking out for his interest, and he gave to me the impression that he knew what Kelsey's function in a general sense was.

Q. He didn't know particularly what Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes meant, but he know Mr. Kelsey was in charge of the Indians?  A. In charge of the Indians and was his friend.

Q. What, if any, Indian commissioner did he mention to you?  A. He mentioned one; I am not quire sure.

Q. Was it Sells or Burke?  A. Burke, I think. I am not quite sure, but he did mention one. Bird, or at least I wrote it Bird; it might have been Burke.

Q. Did he talk to you about property he had in Muskogee and name about the price of it.  A. Yes, sir; he did. He had lived there in Muskogee, he told how he had worked previous to this; how, as a boy, he ferried ponies across the river, ferried people across the river; how they sometimes paid him 25 cents and sometimes paid him 50 cents and sometimes didn't pay him at all; no bridges across the river in those days; used to fish; used to help in shoeing horses; used to work as a carpenter; had built a log house; built a log house down there and somebody helped him; and he talked about his earlier activities; and as I said in gaining his history he had no measles; he had a little pox mark on his nose; I asked him where he had gotten those; he wasn't quite sure but he thought he might have had the smallpox.  With reference to having had accidents, he said yes he was about 20 years of age and an ax had slipped and cut a part of his toe off. I asked him how old he was, and I remember he said he was about that high, indicating a boy 8 to 10 years old, when there was a great war, and it was a war between the North and the South, and he was a little fellow and didn't know much about it, but he remembered he was about that high, indicating 8 to 10 years of age, which would more or less verify the statement he said he was about 70.

Q. In reference to his property at Muskogee, did he make any complaint about the cost of it?  A. I know that he made a great deal of complaint about the cost of the house in Los Angeles, but I am not quite so sure about his complaint of the Muskogee property. 

Q. Do you remember that he mentioned any price the Muskogee house cost?  A. He did, but I don't remember the amount.

Q. If you hear the amount, would you recognize it?  A. Yes sir; it was $30,000.

Q. And do you recall that he said that was more than he agreed to pay, but he had to pay it?  A. Yes, sir; he didn't want to pay so much, he made some remark about $22,000.

Q. Now in reference to the place where he lived, Doctor, did he express any desire which was the place he had rather live?  A. He liked where he had lived before really better than where he lived now.

Q. Did he express any preference between Oklahoma and California?  A. He preferred Oklahoma, I remember very distinctly. 

Q. Did he give any reason why he preferred Oklahoma?  A. He said hay cost $40 a ton in California, and it cost only $10 to $12 a ton in Oklahoma; and he had too big a house, too many rooms in it, and he couldn't live in all of them, and it was all nice and very lovely but it was too big, and it had cost a big lot of money, too much money.

Q. State what, if anything, he said to you in that conversation, Doctor, in regard to the furnishings of the house -- the piano.  A. Well, there were a good many things there; I remember particularly he said there was a piano there; I asked him if he could play it, and he said, no, it played itself, and somebody could also play on it; and he also said he had a victrola and he played on it a great deal and listened to the records quite often; that he changed the records, and he had some preference there.

Q. Did he mention the number of autos and chauffeurs he had?  A. Yes, sir; he had three autos at one time, among them a Pierce Arrow, and that they had had three, and that they had reduced them to two, and it wasn't necessary to have so many, and so forth; he knew all about it; he lacked fine distinctions in language, capable of expressing fine judicial opinions, or more esthetic notions; but he was perfectly aware of what was going on there, but it was more than he was used to, but he put up with it; he was having a good time; he didn't seem to mind.

Q. Did he mention the number of servants he had and the amounts he had paid them?  A. Yes, he did; and he had some sort of a notion, although he wasn't quite so specific about it, a fellow to take care of the horses, and somebody else, and somebody else, and they either paid $180 or $280 a month, or two months, or might be three months, he wasn't quite sure, but the exact details of of the expenditures he wasn't aware of, but he seemed to indicate they all got a lot of money; to him it was a lot of money.

Q. State whether or not, Doctor, in the course of your examination and talk with him you would say he evinced a desire not to spend more money than necessary.  A. He certainly did. He wasn't cognizant of the significance of large figures as expressed in language, but I thought as I discussed with him values, when he had actual money in his hands he knew all about it. He knew the difference, for instance in testing him with all the money I had, up to a $20 bill which was the biggest piece of currency I had, and he knew there were higher pieces of currency; he had to see them.

Q. In the course of your examination did you or did you not talk with him in connection with the trust agreements that were then involved in the litigation of the Baptist Missionary Society?  A. We touched on that, yes sir; but I didn't go extensively into that.

Q. You had some difficulty explaining to him the nature of a trust, didn't you?  A. A complicated trust; yes, sir.

Q. And you afterwards learned through an interpreter that was present that there was no word in the Creek language that embodied the idea of trust?  A. Yes, sir; I found out in the afternoon examination with an interpreter that a lot of abstract ideas which were handled by more advanced languages did not exist in the simpler languages, and one had to get around those things by other ways.

Q. But after talking to him and getting in as simple English as you could the idea of a trust to him, do you recollect what his answer to you about what the trust was, in reference to a squirrel?  A. Oh, yes; he had the idea that a trust was something that one put aside to provide for the future, as the lower animals would collect their nuts for the winter.

Q. Did he say it was like a squirrel gathering nuts for the winter for the young?  A. Yes, sir; that was the conception he had of it.

Q. Squirrel gathering nuts and storing them in the ripe season for the winter time of the year?  A. Yes, sir; he had the notion all right, but he couldn't talk about it; didn't have the words. May I go on and finish up this mental thing, because two or three things, it seems to me, might show so far as arriving at my judgment he didn't have any mental disease?

Q. Yes.

A. Asking him about whether he heard any voices or not, I found he had no hallucinations of hearing; he had no hallucinations of sight, he paid close attention; his thinking was primitive; his arithmetic was bad; his school knowledge was bad; he knew, hovever, of the rivers of Oklahoma; that there was the Arkansas, the Grand, and -- as I spelled it here the Verdigris River; his knowledge of natural objects was very good. For instance, asking him to name me some birds very rapidly, he said the crow, the hawk, the jay bird, the quail, and the blackbird; asking for the names of fish, he said catfish, sunfish, perch, garfish, and mudfish; similarly for animals and flowers.

Q. I will ask you if in naming animals you didn't tell him to name them as rapidly as possible?  A. Yes, sir; I did. These were all within less than 10 or 15 seconds. He named five animals -- horse, mule, cow, sheep, and deer; he named five flowers the same way. Asking him how much it cost to send a letter, he said according to the distance; asking him locally, and he said 2 cents. I asked him to try to make a sentence out of five words; he was unable to do it. Later in the afternoon, then with the interpreter I explained what I was after, he was able to make a sentence with three words. I told him I was going to tell him a proverb, and I quoted to him, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." and asked him what that meant; his reply was, "That is about right, I guess." I gave him the proverb of "Too many cooks spoil the broth," and his reply was "Sure." I tested him on what are known as differences, are, for instance the difference of an ox and a horse; he said the ox had horns; I asked the difference between ice and water; he said ice was frozen water; I asked the difference between a box and a basket; he said a box was made of wood and a basket of rushes; the difference between a bird and a butterfly; he said the bird was food to eat and butterfly was not. I tried him on the test of the continuous sentence; that is, a sentence which begins "If it rains"; he said, "I will do nothing."

Q. You mean by continuous sentence you start and he goes on with the sentence?  A. Yes, sir. Then I added "because," and he couldn't go any further. In other words, a continuous-sentence test starts off with a simple proposition and then goes on and elaborates, because, and then further, nevertheless, but he was unable to carry it out. The backyard associations -- that is, naming things backwards, spelling things backwards -- he gave me the days of the week backwards correctly with one mistake, and he gave me the months of the year backwards with one mistake. I had a chart of the human figure, and he was very correct in naming right and left, front and back, and even the bones of the body; he knew whether they were front or back, right or left, the hands, front and back, right a left. That concluded the general mental tests, which were plainly indicative that there was no psychosis present; also he was not senile.

Q. Amongst the other charts, did you present him one that had a man where a person was shown?  A. Yes, sir; it was a cartoon, and the significance of the cartoon required that the individual should take in the various things that were pictured in the cartoon, and he was quite appreciative; the exact words I didn't write down at the time, but he understood the significance of the cartoon.

Q. He could tell the one that got hurt?  A. Yes, sir; and I think I gave him some what might he called funny questions; there were three brothers, John, Fred, and myself, and he was quite cute, there couldn't be three brothers if there was John, Fred, and myself, could only be two brothers. Then there was another direct thing that I gave him, the exact details of which has gone from my mind now, but it involved an absurdity; well, it was something like a person calling for help after they had been killed, and he detected the absurdity, he smiled and looked at me as though to say, "You damn fool, that couldn't be"; somebody had cut them down from a tree after they had been hung, something like that.

Q. After they were killed he said they couldn't do it?  A. Couldn't let himself down, something like that.

Q. Did you, in the course of your examination of Jackson Barnett, Doctor, did he evince a sense of humor?  A. Distinctly so. That was one of the pleasant parts of the examination. He was enjoying himself just as much as I was.

Q. As a general rule, Doctor, the absence of a sense of humor, together with other things, goes to determine whether the person is or is not mentally incompetent, doesn't it?  A. Well, it is a very valuable asset in a personality; when a man has not got it he is shy something.

Q. Generally speaking, I recognize there are exceptions in everything, but generally speaking, the insane, the idiot, or the person totally devoid of understanding has no sense of humor?  A. You might say that, although there are striking illustrations of comparatively low-grade people that are quite funny, but the type of humor he had was the type of a very intelligent person, because some of the situations were quite complicated they were not simple.

Q. Among other things there, Doctor, did you have him play cards?  A. Yes, sir. Mr. Mott, I believe, was there with us, and he played the game of pitch; I didn't know it by that name; I knew it was the game of seven-up, or all four, high, low, jack, and the game; I hadn't played it for many years myself, but he played it with a great deal of interest and with a great deal of skill. He knew the names of the carer; he knew their values.

Q. What, if any, hesitancy did he show?  A. None; he played quite quickly, and in the main quite astutely.

Q. Did he know when he won and lost?  A. Oh, yes; and what he won and lost.

Q. Did he know how much money he won?  A. Absolutely.

Q. He outplayed Mott in that game?  A. He beat him. It is a simple game, but it has a lot of variations.

Q. He had no difficulty in counting his cards in arriving at the proper points?  A. None whatever. He made no mistakes, so far as I could see. I knew the elements of the game, not the refinements of the game, but still there are a lot of little tricks in it.

Q. Now, will you state, Doctor, the general results you arrived at from your examination of Jackson Barnett as to a condition of his mental health?  A. My conclusions were that he was orderly and healthy physically and mentally; that he wasn't an idiot; he wasn't an imbecile; he wasn't even a high grade moron, or feeble-minded person. That, according to his cultural level, that is a full-blood Indian, without having been to school, without having learned to read and write, I would say he was a man of excellent intelligence, and one that was mentally healthy in every respect.

Q. Prior to your examination of Jackson Barnett you had been furnished and read over what purported to be a photostatic copy of the proceedings before Dana H. Kelsey, superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes, with reference to the approval of an oil and gas mining lease, had you?  A. Yes, sir.

Q. Taking into connection the knowledge you got from the reading of the copy, your examination of Jackson Barnett, your general knowledge of anthropology and ethnology that you have related, your familiarity with aboriginal and savage people generally, and Indians specially, that where an oil and gas mining lease is made under the rules and regulations of the

[end of copy]