Collection: Laws Affecting the Five Civilized Tribes

Decision Rendered Rosella Lewis

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., October 4, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by letter of September 20, 1905, a copy of departmental order of June 13, 1904, fixing September 1, 1904, as the time for closing the rolls of the Muscogee or Creek Nation. My attention is directed to section 7 of the act of June 30, 1902 (32 Stat, 500-501), requiring the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes to enroll all children of parents entitled to enrollment in the Creek Nation born after July 1, 1900, to and including May 25, 1901,

Mary Elizabeth Martin Decision Rendered

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. C., March 30, 1905 Commission To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: February 10, 1904, you returned the record in the matter of the application of Mary Elizabeth Martin for enrollment as a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation. This applicant is the child of Walker Martin and Sallie Moore Martin. Martin was formerly married to a Choctaw woman, and Sallie Moore to a Chickasaw man. The applicant was denied enrollment by your Commission under the act of June 10, 1896, and no appeal was taken. In your decision of March 25, 1903,

Decision Rendered Mary and Roy Strickland

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., December 28, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of October 10, 1905, the report from the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes of September 25, 1905, stating his inability to reconcile the decisions of the Department in the Cherokee citizenship cases of Mary and Roy Strickland, March 17, 1904 (I. T. D., 934 and 21GO 1904); January 4, 1905 (I. T. D., 30201904), and May 25, 1905, and of Ora M. Bonds, nee Camp, March 25, 1903 (I. T. D., 14181903). The Commissioner states two specific points,

Decision Rendered Lemuel Welcome

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., November 12, 1904 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of July 22, 1904, with request for my opinion thereon, the record in the application of Lemuel Welcome to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for his enrollment as a Cherokee freedman by intermarriage. The applicant is a Negro, born in Ohio about 1855, who first went to the Cherokee country about 1870, and September 19, 1883, under a Cherokee marriage license, married Amanda Williams, who was identified on the 1880 authenticated roll of Cherokee freedmen. Her enrollment

Decision Rendered Mary Ann Riley

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., August 31, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of June 19, 1905, the record in the case of Mary Ann Riley and others, applicants for enrollment as Cherokee freedmen, with request for my opinion “whether the applicants in said case are entitled to enrollment.” The applicants are Mary Ann Riley, born about 1820; her daughter, Mary Hazelrig, nee Riley, born about 1855, for herself and minor children, William A., Jesse, Lacy, Alexander, Joseph E., James M. T., James L., and Fred; Mary Brown, nee Hazelrig, for herself

Decision Rendered James S. Long et al

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. C., February 23, 1906. Commissioner To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. SIR: On January 19, 1905, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes transmitted the record in the matter of the application for the enrollment of Lula F. Long, James S. Long, Joseph Long, and Forbis Long as citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, with its decision of January 19, 1905. dismissing the application of Lula F. Long and denying the application of James S., Joseph, and Forbis Long. The papers in the matter were forwarded by the Indian Office March

Decision Rendered Joe and Dillard Perry

Office Of The Secretary Washington, D. (7., February 25, 1905 Commission To The Five Civilized Tribes Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: November 14, 1904, you transmitted report of proceedings had and additional evidence taken in the matter of the applications of Joe and Dillard Perry for their enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation instead of Chickasaw freedmen. November 26, 1904 (Land 80819), the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, reporting in the matter, recommended that Joe and Dillard Perry be declared to be citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation, and that the Department direct the transfer of their

Decision Rendered Harry Still

Office Of The Assistant Attorney-General Washington, D. C., October 5, 1905 The Secretary Of The Interior SIR: I received by reference of September 15, 1905, the record in case of Harry Still, applicant for enrollment as a Cherokee freedman. The letter of reference states that: It appears that the supreme court of the Cherokee Nation on June 7, 1871, admitted the applicant to all the rights of Cherokee citizenship entitled under the treaty of July, 1800. Your opinion is requested as to whether the applicant is entitled to be enrolled as n Cherokee freedman by reason of the admission of

Decision Rendered in James M. Buckholts, et al

Office Of The Secretary, Washington, I). C., February 24, 1904 The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, Muscogee, Ind. T. GENTLEMEN: There is enclosed herewith a copy of an opinion of the Assistant Attorney-General for this Department of February 18, 11)01, in the matter of the application for the enrollment of James M. Buckholts, Rebecca Buckholts, and Alice Dwight, formerly Buckholts, which opinion has been approved by the Department. In accordance therewith your decision in favor of the applicants is hereby affirmed. A copy of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs letter of December 1, 1903, submitting the case, is enclosed.

Decision Digest – F – I

Fractional Subdivision Of less than 10 acres. (See ALLOTMENT, par. 6.) Fraud 1. In making selection, effect of. Contestee filed upon land, falsely swearing that he was the owner of the improvements and subsequently attempted to obtain title therein from one of the former owners of said improvements. Held, That contestee’s filing was fraudulent and of no effect and conveyed no rights to contestee. (Choctaw No. 42, Freeny v. Dillard.) 2. Presumption of, inadequate consideration. Where the amount for which land was sold at an execution sale ($8) was grossly cut of proportion to the real value ($800 to $2,200),