so they came back to Congress in 1902 and asked Congress to pass additional legislation and to create a citizenship court, that court to be given the authority to review all of the claims that had been passed upon by the Federal court.

Legislation was enacted creating this citizenship court, and that court began to function. More than 4,000 claimants were stricken from our rolls by this citizenship court, because when the rolls were beginning to be made, hordes of white people from other States came to Oklahoma and sought enrollment. There were thousands who made application for enrollment who were never in the State. They made application from other States, because they thought they saw an opportunity to obtain tracts of valuable land.

Therefore, we feel that with all the machinery that was provided by Congress, every person had an opportunity to appear before one of those tribunals and to have his day in court.

Senator FRAZIER. Have there been any enrollments since this law was passed?

Mr. STIGLER. Yes, in one instance, Senator. In August 1914 the courts passed additional legislation putting certain people on our rolls. Investigation was made of these different claims, covering a period of 2 years. In 1916 there were additional people put on our rolls, but since then there have been none.

Senator FRAZIER. How many were put on the rolls then?
Mr. STIGLER. Sixteen hundred, if I remember correctly.

We feel that if the rolls are to be reopened again, certainly those of us who are now on the rolls are entitled to and have a higher right to have our children put on the rolls who are not now on the rolls, rather than those who have appeared before these commissions and other tribunals and have had their day in court.

I should be glad to answer any questions the gentlemen of the committee desire to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any statements or data that you wish to incorporate into the record in connection with your presentation? Mr. STIGLER. Mr. Chairman, there was an editorial from the Tushkahomman, under date of Tuesday, April 9, 1935, written by Mr. Ben Dwight, at that time the chief of the Choctaw Nation, which I should like to read into the record. [Reading:]

REOPENING THE TRIBAL ROLLS

The time when Congressmen will discontinue the practice of introducing bills seeking the reopening of tribal rolls to permit the enrolling of additional claimants seems just as far removed from us today as ever. Each session of the Congress, year in and year out, the tribes are put to the expense of sending lawyers to Washington to go over, again and again, with uninformed Congressmen the scheme of enrolling of membership of the Five Civilized Tribes and the perequisites necessary to the enrollment of persons on the tribal rolls. The need to keep attorneys employed for this purpose has long since ceased to be annoying to the tribal membership; it has become exasperating.

The very terms of the patent issued, in 1842, provides that one of the requisites of citizenship in the Five Civilized Tribes is residence. No person, be he a full-blood Indian, who did not reside in the Indian Territory, agreeable to the terms of that patent can ever be made the subject of tribal enrollment, under the treaties and agreements of the tribes with the Government.

Another requirement before enrollment was the need for blood relation with members of the tribe-recognized by the tribe.

The third requirement was recognition by the tribe as being a member of it, and actual participation in tribal relations. Failing any of these prerequisites, no person was or is eligible for enrollment on the rolls of any of the Five Civilized Tribes. These rules are not only those in vogue by the tribes for their protection and convenience, but are recognized and written into law by the Government. Such rules are not arbitrary nor whimsical, they are based upon sound reason and are fair and just.

It must be remembered that the occupancy of the Indian Territory was not made by any of the Five Tribes willingly. They were driven here at the instance of the United States. The least that they could ask for and the most they could hope to get, was a country where they would not be molested by others. They hoped to find it in the Indian Territory. The Government, being determined to effect the removal of the Indians, conceived of the scheme of confiscation of their lands if they did not physically remove from east of the Mississippi and actually reside on it. No charity prompted the action of the Government in inserting in the patent the right to occupy the land "as long as the grass grows and the water runs". It was but the means employed, to carry out their predetermined program of Indian removal. And the provision "as long as they shall live upon it as a people" was, likewise, but a declaration of policy on the part of the Government to insure the removal of the unwanted Indian from the eastern States. In short, failure of the Indian to remove lost him his land.

Further provisions of the removal treaty, in case of the Choctaws, article XIV, provided for the expatriation of members of the tribe who did not remove with the balance of the tribal membership. So that, if any member of the tribe did not remove with the tribę, he lost his identity as a member of it, and losing his tribal identity necessarily lost his tribal recognition and rights to tribal property.

This situation was well understood by the Dawes Commission and by the citizenship court; the two special forums created by the Congress for the purpose of making the approval final rolls. The correctness of the application of all such prerequisities and situations was approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case before it to test those identical questions.

The rolls were accordingly closed March 4, 1907. They were approved by the solemn act of the Congress decreeing them to be final. Yet, 28 years later, the tribes are being subjected to additional bills, seeking rehearings of matters then gone over and attending reopening of the bills for the purpose of enrollment.

Under the rules of the game as played in the matter of tribal recognition and enrollment for the past hundred years, not a single person now before the Congress has the slightest right to be enrolled. Not one of them nor their ancestors came to and resided upon the lands of the Five Civilized Tribes to save it for their posterity. If they were, in fact, of Indian blood, they chose to go to Texas, Missouri, or Kansas during the decades the Indian country was being developed and lived upon by the Indians. If all the others of the tribes had likewise gone to some adjoining State-title to the Indian country would have long since escheated to the Government, and there would be no tribal domain to claim a share of. Tribal recognition was never accorded any of them, and they at no time ever participated in tribal affairs. So that, aside from the bare possibility that these claimants may be of some small degree of Indian blood, and the proof is far from persuasive even to show that fact, these people possess not one qualification entitling them to enrollment. And this is true without the decisions of the Dawes Commission and the citizenship court.

The justification for the introduction of these bills is found, by their proponents, in urging that the hearings granted before the forums created for that purpose did not give them a fair trial. That as a matter of right they should be enrolled, regardless of prior decisions; that they are, after all, in truth and fact Indians.

By assuming, for the sake of the argument, that they all have Indian blood, we still feel that there are others who are infinitely more entitled to be the recipients of any gratuities of the tribes than these people. Throughout the area of the Five Civilized Tribes, there are literally thousands of children, born to parents of recognized Indian blood in the Indian Territory who are not on and cannot be put on the tribal rolls for the simple reason that they were born after the closing of the rolls. Many of these children are in dire need, scores of them have no homes, and most of them need additional schooling.

If the Congress is going to open the rolls for anyone, upon the grounds of mercy and generosity, would it not be much more generous and merciful to open them for these children whose ancestors made possible this tribal heritage, big or little? Couldn't such conduct be much more easily justified than the throwing open of the rolls to the grown children of people who, in the beginning, never thought enough of the Indian Territory to save it for their children or their children's children,

Finally, if we were to become skeptical, we might wonder just why it is that all of the abuses of leaving off the rolls members of the tribe is laid at the feet of the Choctaws and Chickasaws. Bills are seldom, if ever, introduced seeking enrollment of persons on the rolls of any of the other of the Five Tribes. Could it be that by reason of the fact that the Choctaws and Chickasaws have some tribal domain left, while the others have none, that the abuse of misenrollment became more prevalent among them? We wonder if the other tribes would not be subjected to just as many enrollment-seeking bills as they, if any common property, subject to being claimed, was owned by them.

I thank you, gentlemen, very kindly.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stigler represents the Choctaws. We have here this morning, also, the principal chief of the Choctaws, in the person of Mr. W. A. Durant. Mr. Durant served in the Oklahoma State Legislature for many years. I had the pleasure of serving with him for something like 10 of those years, he being in the house, and I being in the senate. Mr. Durant was the speaker of the house. For the record I should like Mr. Durant to appear and make such statement as he deems proper.

STATEMENT OF W. A. DURANT, PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF THE

CHOCTAW NATION OF INDIANS

Mr. DURANT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not think it is necessary for me to add much to the argument presented by our attorney, Mr. Stigler, except to say that the Choctaw people, and I as their representative, feel that we have made a treaty with the United States Government to give up our government, and have allotted our land, have let the Government make up our rolls under that treaty, have carried them through the courts, to settle it in that way a good while ago; and we think that it is unfair for people to appear here before Congress or before a committee of Congress with just an open bill and a statement that somebody imagines he has got Indian blood in him and that he ought to be put on the Indian rolls, therefore, by asking Congress to open the rolls and to put him on without any further investigation.

This kind of proceeding, as I say, we think is very unfair and very unjust to the Choctaw people or to any other tribes whose rolls have been set. If the matter is to be reopened, if the thing is to be tried again, and Congress in its wisdom wants to do that, then. Congress should set up complete machinery and complete the procedure, set a time, and let these people come before such court as may be established, so that they can offer competent testimony and so that the tribes will have an opportunity to answer with competent testimony and thus get an absolutely fair verdict.

If there is anybody who happens not to be listed in the roll, and who should be enrolled, have the matter adjusted. But you must remember another thing, and that is that before we can divide our lands, before we can divide our property, the rolls must be closed.

2786-37-2

Before the Government could settle that country out there as a settlement and make it a State, it had to close those rolls. That was the only way they could do it. There had to be a limit to the number of people who were put on the rolls; otherwise, there could not have been an equitable division of the property.

Since the last act of Congress was passed putting those people on the rolls in 1914, Congress has been inclined to refuse to permit the reopening of the rolls, and I think Congress is right. I am arguing to you purely from an equitable standpoint that if this thing has got to be tried, let us try it in court, and let us try it right. Let us no come in, by this kind of procedure, and try to put somebody on those rolls.

As was stated by the chairman of this committee, the land has all been divided, and some of what has been divided has been sold. All that the Choctaws and Chickasaws have down there in common is the coal land. That was segregated and, of course, there is now no market for it. If a person comes in now, there is not a foot of land down there that he can get. All that I know of that he can get, if he secures an act of Congress to put him on the rolls, would be some kind of cash judgment, either against the Choctaws and Chickasaws or against the United States Government.

Before that could be done, a thing of that kind ought to be tried in a court of equity, where the evidence can be taken and the man be sworn and looked in the face as to whether he is telling the truth or not.

We have had to resist these proposed acts of Congress every session. We have had our attorneys up here and have had here the chiefs representing the various tribes. At every session of Congress we have had to meet these bills. We are continuing to do it, because our people do not think it is right, our attorneys do not think it is right, and I do not think it is right. I oppose it not only as an individual but as a representative of my tribe. I think it would be an injustice if you pass legislation of this kind at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. I know of your long residence in the State and of your length of service in the legislature.

Mr. DURANT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the viewpoint of the Chickasaws and the Choctaws, of course?

Mr. DURANT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say just now that the Indians without exception are opposed to this class of legislation.

Mr. DURANT. Yes; the Five Civilized Tribes are absolutely opposed-the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, and the other tribes.

You do not see many bills in here against the Cherokees, the Creeks, and the Seminoles. Why? They divided all their property, and the only trouble is that we have got that little imaginary value in that segregated coal, and somebody imagines that he can get in on the roll and get a cash judgment against it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Durant, you are personally acquainted with all of the delegates in Congress, the Members of the House and Senate. Just state for the record the viewpoint and the attitude of the House Members as you know it to be on not only this bill but on similar bills.

Mr. DURANT. I think I would be safe in saying that both the Senators and every member of the Congress from my State is opposed to this kind of legislation. They know what has happened down there. They know that these people have had their day in court and that it would be an injustice to a great number of other citizens down there to pass legislation of this kind.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee desire to ask Mr. Durant any questions?

All right, Mr. Durant. We thank you for your statement. Is there anyone else present who wishes to make a statement? Mr. STIGLER. The special attorney for the Chickasaws is here, and he may wish to give a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Cornish, do you wish to make a statement? STATEMENT OF MELVEN CORNISH, SPECIAL ATTORNEY FOR THE CHICKASAW NATION OF INDIANS

Mr. CORNISH. Mr. Stigler, the tribal attorney for the Choctaw Nation, has made a statement that covers the situation very fully and completely. The Chief of the Choctaw Nation has done likewise. I do not think it would be advisable for me to take up the time of the committee to add much to what has been said. It has been completely covered. The subject is one having such tremendous imputations, and we have been through these matters so completely and fully for the last 30 years, that much time could be consumed in reviewing all these proceedings to show these applicants have had their day in court. To do that would be similar to opening Pandora's Box.

Approximately 100,000 persons have had their day in court. Some have been before the Dawes Commission, some have been before the State courts, and some have been before the Federal courts. This room would not contain the record that was made up in connection with that subject. So, to pick out a particular case, because some particular person says he has some degree of Choctaw blood and that therefore he should be on the roll, and that the whole matter should be opened up by legislation for the benefit of that applicant, would be like opening Pandora's Box. There would then be a hundred thousand people who would want the same thing.

As the Chief said, if this is to be considered, then it should be considered by some competent tribunal, where evidence could be presented. I am sure that the committee does not wish to do it, because that would be traveling the same road again.

Senator FRAZIER. I heartily agree with you that the Senate committee is not a competent tribunal.

Mr. CORNISH. I certainly did not mean to give that implication. If the committee wished to sit as a tribunal to take into consideration the reopening of the rolls and to consider evidence presented by the applicants and the claimants, it could handle the evidence as good as the Dawes Commission.

Senator FRAZIER. There was a good deal of complaint about the actions of the Dawes Commission and about the discrimination and the way in which persons were chosen. As far as I can learn, there was a lot of just criticism, and many of those who were thrown