Data Relative to the Rolls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations

The 1896 Choctaw Census Roll, in possession of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, provides detailed demographic data of Choctaw families, listing heads of families, children, and other household members with their ages and relationships. Notably, the roll, prepared uniformly by a single hand, includes remarks and notations, some incomplete or unclear, often added by the Dawes Commission. This census roll, derived from county enumerators’ lists, was authorized by Congress and used in fieldwork starting in 1897. Despite its generally high quality, the roll contains inconsistencies and missing data, reflecting the challenges of accurately documenting the population at the time.

Exhibit D

In the possession of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes.

1896 Choctaw Census Roll.

Has columns showing head of family, children, subdivided into males and females, showing age, relation to head of family, and column for remarks. Appearance of roll uniformity, that is, all, or nearly all, of the names are written in same hand; column for remarks not complete, but show county; relationship to the head of the family sometimes shown, but not always definitely, that is to say, whether child or ward. As a general rule the showing as to relationship to the head of family is very defective and in many cases there is no showing whatever.

Upon the rolls are notations in blue pencil placed there by the Dawes Commission, showing the census card number of the family. The local district in which the people live is also noted from time to time. Wherever notations are made in writing, such as “dead,” etc., there is nothing to show by whom made. There are, however, notations showing death of parties by stamp placed by clerks of the Dawes Commission.

This roll was made up by copying lists prepared by county enumerators. The roll was prepared under authority of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896, and in connection with which see supplemental acts of the council, referred to in the reports relating to the Betty Lewis and William C. Thompson cases.

This roll was obtained by the commission in 1897 or 1898 and was used in the field work of the latter year. Apparently the index of the roll was completed March 25, 1899, by Philip G. Reuter and Mark Kirpatrick.

On page 10 of roll, Nos. 390 to 392, Inclusive, the family of J. E. Atkinson, I find names of head of family and male children crossed out: following his name, under head of “Remarks,” are the words “Don’t enroll ” without initials or signature. Upon the same page I also find the word “dead” in pencil without being initialed after the name of Lorena Anderson, No. 396.

On page 15 several people of the name of Askew are enrolled in pencil and without the use of the marginal numbers which showed the number of citizens. In the column for remarks the word “doubtful ” is placed after the name of B. B. Askew. This is written in pencil and not initialed or signed. In indexing the roll the commission omitted these names; although in pencil, they appear to be written in the same hand as the rest of the roll. Occasionally will be found the entry of names written in another handwriting than that which uniformly prevails throughout the census book. For example, Nos. 544 and 545, Mary Elizabeth Arrington and Rosa Valentine Arrington, and also on the same page that of Burney Etta Anderson, No. 555, and others. Where names are written on this page in a different handwriting the purpose seems to have been to set forth the full name of the persons in order to identify same. It is manifest that such a scheme could have been resorted to to connect up a person with the roll. This roll is said to be, with respect to its condition, one of the very best rolls received by the commission. The general remarks made above may be fairly said to be applicable throughout the roll.

On page 327, under the head of “Chickasaw district” are to be found notations “Enrolled without authority of law” after the name of John T. Thompson and other numbers, in all about 22 persons. Various other notes appear upon these pages. For example, “Enrollment refused.” This last notation occurs upon several pages. I also find the notation on page 305 opposite various names “Admitted by U. S. Ct. South McAlester,” etc. I find no notation signed or initialed, but I am informed that there are probably some such; at least one is known of signed by Mr. Bixby.

The total number of persons enrolled upon this roll is 14,248 citizens by blood. The total number of citizens of the Choctaw Nation whose enrollment was finally approved are Included on 6,084 straight census cards. In this connection it must be borne in mind that not every name appearing upon the cards within this number was finally enrolled. This reference is made to the number of the cards as showing as nearly as possible the number of cases. In addition to the straight cards there were approximately 1,000 “doubtful” cards; persons whose names appear thereon were, in some cases, admitted and in others rejected. There were also about 900 cards in rejected cases. Some of these were also admitted upon further evidence.

As the work stood at the final wind-up the number of rejected cases stood to the number of admitted cases In the proportion of about one to four or five; that is to say, there were about one thousand to four or five thousand.

Continuing with the 1896 roll, the next subdivision of intermarried citizens begins with No. 14249 and runs to and inclusive of 15211. The number of persons appearing upon the approved roll of citizens by blood of the Choctaw Nation, including those stricken there from, is 16,227, while the number upon the tribal roll is that noted above. (This does not include newborns and minors under the acts of March 3, 1905, and April 26, 1906)

The number of intermarried persons upon the 1896 census roll is 964, whereas the number upon the approved roll, including those stricken there from, Is 1,672.

The next subdivision is that of freedmen. I find frequently the words “Chickasaw freedmen” stamped in blue after the names of persons. This was done by the Dawes Commission. However, these persons were subsequently enrolled as Choctaw freedmen upon the final roll of Choctaw freedmen as approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The number of Choctaw freedmen on this roll is 3,742.

Memorandum rolls from which 1896 Choctaw roll was made up.

The census enumerators prepared separate books for citizens by blood, intermarried citizens, and freedmen. In books relating to the first class the pages were ruled in columns, showing number, name, quantum of Indian blood, age to nearest birthday, sex, relation to head of family, whether married or single, and whether able to speak English. Generally speaking, these columns were all fairly well filled out, but in some cases the degree or Indian blood was not shown. These county rolls were copied into a large book which became the official roll of the tribe. Most of the data appearing upon the enumerators’ rolls was not noted upon the roll which was indexed and used by the commission.

On the county rolls names were occasionally lined out and the word “dead” noted without anything to show when or by what authority It was done. In the course of the work it was also claimed occasionally by individuals that even though their names did not appear upon the roll as finally made up that they were enrolled by the census enumerators. See departmental decision In case of Nancy J. Murphy and Charlotta Murphy (January 12, 1907; I. T. D., 15978—1906) :

“Nancy Jane Murphy and Charlotta Murphy were not enrolled upon the regular tribal rolls of the Choctaw Nation in the possession of this office, but claimed to have been enrolled by the census enumerators for Atoka County, and her name was found on page 244 of a roll designated as “Choctaw census roll No. “O.” This roll was forwarded to the department for consideration in connection with motions for rehearing of this case, and while the department does not go at length into the merits of such entry of the names of applicants upon rolls of this character it is stated: “It is apparent that none of the applicants are entitled to enrollment. The petitions are therefore denied.” This after reciting the character of the roll and the appearance of the names of some of the parties to the petition thereon.”

In some cases, particularly in the roll of Eagle County, names were entered in pencil without numbers, and some of them subsequently crossed out. In other places whole pages were entered without numbers and stricken off without explanation. Some of the work was exceedingly bad and anything but systematic, resembling the pages of a schoolboy’s spelling lesson as the same might appear after having been written in a schoolboy hand and words scratched off.

On page 38 of Blue County book I find four names scratched off without explanation. These names were probably stricken off because they were entered upon another page.

In the book for Red River County I find about 25 loose sheets, on which are names written in pencil not showing the usual data and in some cases hardly decipherable, In others fairly plain.

In the book for Skullyville County I find a list of names in pencil in back part of book, some of which have been lined out, showing age of person but not including them in the names of members. In fact, the numbers were generally omitted in this book us well as the information called for outside of the column entitled “Age.” Here, as elsewhere, names are frequently lined out without explanation; some times a whole page will appear in this condition. The handwriting is not uniform; pages are torn; evidently school children have had access to the book, and have used it to practice lessons in penmanship.

In this fame book I find a number of names of persons with their ages entered upon the inside of the last cover—for example, Sydney Bond and others. These names may have been added by some one who thought he had authority or some one may have been continuing his lesson in penmanship in the back of the book.

“O” roll.

This is a book pertaining to citizenship with or without authority. Entries are made in it relative to persons of Choctaw blood, freedmen. and intermarried persons. Inferences are made, lines drawn off, remarks, etc. The different classes of persons are numbered as a general rule, for example, the number of Choctaw running up to 701 on page 52 and is continued on page 100, from which it runs on to 1,049, on page 108. Occasionally a name is lined out. Ages are given and addresses. Sometimes only the age is given. The names are readily recognized as belonging to Choctaw families. About six pages have been cut out. The portion of the pages which is left show that they were well filled, at least from top to bottom with writing.

This book contains on the inside of the cover the name of J. C. Folsom and the stamp of the Department of the Interior. Indian Territory division, received September 7, 1906, inclosure No. 6 of  No. 15978. On the next page is found what appears to be the title of the book, as follows: “Choctaw census roll No. O.” This is probably in the writing of Mr. Hopkins, formerly a clerk of the commission, but upon the outside cover, which is of leather and of ancient appearance. are the following words in red ink : “Choctaws residing in Chickasaw Nation. Memorandum roll. ‘O’ roll.” While the writing in this book is not very legible, still it is fairly so. The person who kept the book evidently made considerable effort to make some record of the people whose names appear thereon, particularly their age. residence, and family relationship. With the exception of the pages which were cut out, referred to above, the book is in a good state of preservation. It contains 254 numbered pages. It also contains a list entitled “Doubtful white claim citizenship” also entitled “Doubtful citizens” running from page 254 to 261 inclusive. The last three pages of the book are devoted to domestic matters. For example, on page 262 is a running account covering the period from January, 1890, to November, 1893, showing Jesse Wheeler debtor to J. C. Folsom in various amounts to a total of $407.35. On the next page is a detailed description relating to painting and paint brushes. On the last page are ” Directions for painting peacock.”

Elsewhere in the book, on page 230, are cooking recipes for making buns, French rolls, preparing brine to preserve butter, to pickle tomatoes, to prepare chopped pickles, chili sauce, and tomato catsup. These facts are noted to illustrate the method of keeping and preserving official records. It should be added that the commission was never able to ascertain positively by whom this book was prepared or for what purpose. On the second page of the first flyleaf is found the following: “Presented to the National Party for the county of Atoka, C. N.”

This roll was not indexed by the commission or used as a book of reference In making the rolls. It was forwarded to the department for Inspection in connection with a report in the Choctaw .case of Nancy Jane Murphy et al., referred to heretofore.

1896 Census Roll No. 2.

This roll is contained in a large book, which is In general appearance and size a duplicate of the regular 1896 roll. On the back of It Is the title “Census roll of Choctaw Nation, circuit court first district; taken November, 1896” This book, generally speaking, has a neat appearance, but there are various irregularities in it. Names are entered in pencil, others are stricken off without explanation. It shows the names of heads of families and children, with ages of all. The names are entered by counties. Mr. Telle and Mr. Lewis state that In some respects they thought this roll was probably better than roll No. 1. The history of the roll, by whom prepared, etc., has never been definitely ascertained. It was not Indexed by the commission and was not regularly used in determining whether the names of applicants appeared upon the tribal roll. Reference was made to It In extreme cases. where persons were urgent in insisting that their names were upon the tribal roll. It should be added, however, that the names were alphabetically arranged in this book.

1893 Leased District Payment Roll.

This roll consists of a collection of bound books, upon the backs of which are the names of the Choctaw counties, aggregating about 18, including the list of Choctaws residing In the Chickasaw district.

The pages are divided into columns, showing number, heads of families, children, male and female, age. to whom paid and amount paid to each. There is also a column for remarks. [It must he ascertained when this roll was made; that is to say. whether a census was taken prior to 1893 or whether the roll was made up as the money was paid out: what act of the council authorized the roll and where said act can be found.] The amount paid each citizen was $103. The notation under the head of remarks shows that the money was paid by check. Sometimes there is a notation showing to whom the cheek was paid: that is to say, checks were actually paid to persons other than the ones who are listed on the rolls as entitled to the money. The pages as a rule are neat in appearance, but the handwriting is not always the same. Occasionally entries are made in pencil, but not frequently. Now and then a name has been erased. The column entitled “To whom paid” is frequently filled out in a handwriting which is not that of the person who prepared the original roll.

On page 29 I find the names of Mary Alice Johnson and Martha R. Johnson, ages, respectively, 14 and 12 years. In the column for remarks the following notation appears after these names: “Father white; mother dead; think father sold check before he left town.” Query. Were parties held up and refused enrollment unless they would consent to assign their right to the payment? So charged in ease of J. W. F. Howard, departmental letters, which are dated as follows: June 26. 1905 (I. T. D. 5231-1905), July 7, 1906 (11028, 13594- 1905). March 1, 1907.

On page 42 the name of Alex McKinney appears opposite No. 423. but the space for amount paid after his name is blank. Under the head of remarks are notes which have been partially scratched off, but which are sufficiently legible to show that A. McKinney failed to prove his right presumably to citizenship.

(Ascertain If this person was finally enrolled. His age was 30 in 1893, resident of Skullyville County. Impossible to identify the Alex. McKinney referred to above as either applicant for enrollment or enrolled citizen of Choctaw Nation.)

Sometimes it appears that the check was handed to the husband. In the Skullyville roll is a letter dated October 23, 1896, at Cameron. Ind. T. addressed to Gov. McCurtain. from T. J. Sexton, relative to Mr. George W. (?) Bustin. The roll does not show freedmen or intermarried whites. Neither shared in the payment.

Choctaw Census Roll of 1885.

—For history of this roll see Betty Lewis report of January 24, 1903. The roll consists of volumes bearing names of counties, entitled on back “Census of 1885, Atoka County.” etc. Title on cover same; one volume for each county, indexed between January and April 1, 1903.

The pages contain columns showing names, ages, sex, race, occupation, number of live stock, and amount of agricultural products, together with a column for areas and other information. In the column last referred to is sometimes noted “Choctaw by blood” other times, “citizens by adoption.” These rolls are well bound and in good condition. The persons enrolled thereon are numbered; names not arranged alphabetically. The book for Atoka County has a slip found in it unsigned, reading as follows: “Atoka County, omitted to record in the book. James Gibson’s family, 3 children, Harris Botosh, 3 children.”

Nothing is shown on the slip which will serve to identify the children. The total of all classes for Atoka County is 1,247.

1885 Roll, Eagle County.

The same remarks apply, generally, as those noted in connection with Atoka County, but persons are not numbered. The numbers are footed up at the bottom of each page for each class. I am informed that no act has been found authorizing this roll. Presumably the act. If printed, will be found in the Choctaw law books for the period including the year 1885. It may be that law was never reduced to print. The census taker for Eagle County was Ben Watts, who made his return over his signature May 11, 1885. This book was evidently retained in the possession of the census taker or at least it was withheld from the national secretary for several months, the latter having attached a note to the book for Eagle County, dated February 8, 1880, certifying that all of the books of the second district never appeared at his office until that day. His certificate concludes: ” It seems that the book has been on the road to this office for several months.” The national secretary was Thompson McKinney. He also makes the following statement: “The foregoing census of Eagle County is filed in my office this 8th day of February, 1886.”

1885 Roll, Blue County.

Same general remarks as above. Name on page 29, No. 418, Bessand Durant, crossed out and no explanation. Detached slip in this book reads as follows: “Omitted to record in the book, Blue County: Orleana Turnbull, 10; Robert Turnbull. 8; Rosa Turnbull. 2; Bennie Hunter, child Willie Bennie Hunter, 1 week.”This statement is unsigned.”

1885 Roll, Gaines County.

Special comment unnecessary, except that column for other information generally neglected, although not always so. Filed with national secretary September 21, 1885.

1885 Roll, Towon County.

Special comment unnecessary, except that column for other information is vacant almost without exception. Certificate of Ben Watkins, July 26, 1885.

1885 Roll, Tobucksy County.

Special comment unnecessary.

1885 Roll, Boktuklo County.

Filed with national secretary, February 8, 1886, Ben Watkins, census commissioner.

1885 Roll, Cedar County.

Filed with national secretary February 8, 1886, Ben Watkins, census commissioner.

1885 Roll, Kiamitia County.

Certified to by S. D. Hotema. county and probate judge Kiamitia County, July, 16, 1885. Filed with national secretary October 7, 1885.

The majority of books examined appear upon the whole neat. Each book indicates from the appearance that the names were written at one time, as might probably be the case where at one sitting a person would copy from lists prepared in field work. Regularity of the writing certainly indicates that the names were not entered during the taking of the census.

This is the earliest Choctaw roll in the possession of the commission, but there is a roll or registration lists of Choctaw freedmen which purports to show the ones who selected to accept the hundred-dollar payment provided for in article 2 of the treaty of 1866. This book was not indexed, but was actually referred to, as it was of some value in corroborating testimony. This roll was not regarded in any way as a citizenship roll.

1896, Chickasaw Census Roll.

This roll consists of typewritten pages securely bound. The first page is scarcely readable at this time, but a duplicate was made of it some time ago by using a reading glass. The second page is very- dim, but can be deciphered. The other pages are a little plainer. The roll shows only the county and the names of the members. The first part of the roll relates to members by blood. Following their names are numbers in blue, indicating census records of the Dawes Commission. On page 40 is the name of Amanda Hays and the word “error” written after it, and the following unsigned note appears upon the page in connection therewith: “Amos H. Hays says there is only one Amanda in this family.” I am informed that this was probably written by Mr. Hopkins of the Dawes Commission. Occasionally other names are written in in pencil, possibly by clerks of the Dawes Commission. On page 45. in connection with the Leader family, this note appears: “Tandy Walker says all are Creeks or Cherokee.” Like notation is made on page 46 in connection with the name of Ed Leader and others. The notation was probably made by Mr. Beall, as I am informed. The word “dead” is occasionally noted and given names are sometimes added. These notes are never signed. Take, for instance, on page 50, after the name of Morgan Sealy is written “Mary Ann,” and nothing to show why it was done. The word “dead” frequently occurs in stamped letters placed upon the roll by employees of the commission. This roll bears numerous pencil notes unsigned. The number of members is not shown. As the roll is typewritten, it must, of course, have been transcribed from original lists or schedules. This was actually a fact, as some of the lists are on file with the commission.

Following the members by blood is a list of members by intermarriage with the same general arrangement of counties. There is also a list of citizens by intermarriage residing in the Choctaw Nation. Following this is a “doubtful list.” On page 84 I find, after the name of Zula J. Story, “Admitted by U. S. Court.” After the name of Mary J. James. “Denied by U. S. Court.” Beginning on page 85 Is found a list of names of members of the Chickasaw Tribe of Indians, both by blood and intermarriage, registered under an act of the Chickasaw Legislature approved July 31, 1897. Frequent notations are also found on this list, written in pencil. A number of these notes are in Mr. Beall’s writing, but Commissioner McKennon’s handwriting also appears on the roll.

This roll was obtained by the commission late In 1807 or early in 1898 and prior to the beginning of the work of the enrollment in the field. When the roll came into the possession of the commission it was bound only with a paper back, and it was found necessary to rebind it to protect it. Date when index was completed is not positively known. Index may have been prepared by tribal authorities. All in writing.

1893 Chickasaw Pay Roll No. 1.

Roll now well bound, but cover supplied by Dawes Commission. Appearance of page indicates poor work in making roll. A number of pages were pasted in. On one is found the following: “These leaves that are enclosed was mistake and I have copied it over. Scotland Hawkins.” The enrollment: begins with name of Nelson Chigley and family, with total number of same: then follows other families. The first 100 pages are in a very bad condition. Names are stricken out without explanation, amounts paid are not shown, but on page 105 is a list of the members without explanation, concluding with one which is designated as amount paid being $538,784.30.

Beginning on page 107 there seems to be a reproduction of the rolls and some attempt has been made to arrange the names in alphabetical order. They seem to be so arranged as a general rule. These pages do not show the ages of the members nor any facts concerning them. The general arrangement indicates, and it is so understood by those familiar with the roll that the names occurring in the right-hand column show the persons to whom the payment was actually made. It is worthy of comment that many payments were made to Nelson Chigley and William Rennie. Chigley received payments for members of his own family, but judging from the entries he must have received payments for many other persons. It also frequently appears that Scott Hawkins, the party referred to above as inserting the new leaves, frequently receives payments for various persons.

Beginning on page 107 and running over to the bottom of page 111 it is found that Nelson Chigley received payment for 10 persons. 5 of whom were of the name of Chigley. On the same pages the name of William Rennie appears 38 times, while the mime of Scott Hawkins as payee occurs 8 times. Ou later pages the names of these three persons occur frequently. For example, on page 117 Chigley drew 4 payments, Hawkins 8 and Rennie 8 out of a total of 29 on that page. Another person to whom frequent payments were made was ” H. H. B.” On page 110 Rennie appears 10 times and Hawkins about the same number. The same thing is true on other pages which follow. Likewise of Chigley and the said H. H. B., the latter name appearing in full on page 125 as H. H. Burris. On this page is found the name of Wyatt Mahardy. Take this up in connection with the case of Sam Mahardy or Mahada.

Page 125 shows 13 payments to Rennie. Page 127 shows 4 payments to Rennie: Nelson Chigley 8 on page 129; page. 130, William Rennie draws 12, the balance to ” H. H. B.” Page 131, Ronnie 5: page 132, Nelson Chigley drew 4 payments for members of Thomas family. Rennie drew 4 times on the same page. On page 133 Rennie drew 6 times: page 134 Rennie drew 11 times; page 135 is the statement showing leased district receipts.

Total amount received from sub-treasury        $735.002.50
Attorneys’ fees                                                 105,510.49

Balance                                                             570,143.01
Expense of census and disbursement                     2,584. 30

Balance                                                             567,558.71
Per capita 4.246. at $130, total                         551,980.00

Reserve fund                                                         15,578.71

Beginning on page 130 is the following title: “List of names added to the census roll agreeable to an act approved” (date not given).

On pages that follow Chigley frequently drew payments; also M. V. C. (Martin V. Cheadle). Taken as a whole this is a rather disreputable looking affair. Book No. 1 not indexed. When used in connection with enrollment work the names in the book were examined in connection with the cases under consideration.

Chickasaw 1893 Pay Roll No. 2.

Now well bound in new binding furnished by Dawes Commission. The appearance of this book is even more disreputable than book No. 1. Names are lined out without explanation. Payments are frequently, in fact almost as a rule, made to persons other than the members to whom due. Examples of names crossed out are found on page 3, where six members of the Beeler family are lined out. See also page 5, where eight members of the Parker family are lined out. Numerous instances where paymen’s were made to other than the members entitled to same are deserving of marked attention. Page 9. six members of the Hamblin family were stricken off, while four members were retained. In this book J. C. Kemp frequently receives the money, but Scott Hawkins and Rennie come in for a generous share. On page 14 there are 14 names stricken off without explanation. On page 15 there are 11 names which were stricken off. In the case of Emma and Eva Clippings a note is made as follows: “These people came directly from Arkansas, claim they are relation to these Moores.” After the names of the Riddle family, which are stricken off, “These people citizenship is doubted.”

Page 30, B. W. Carter draws seven shares for members of the Adkins family; he drew several also on page 31 and also on page 32. G. B. Hester draws nine times on page 32. Page 41, B. W. Carter draws six shares. This roll, as the former, shows continuing evidence that the citizens assigned their payments. A comparatively small number of men whose names have been noted were assignees.

Page 53. “C. D C.” received seven payments for members of the Campbell family. The name of the assignee is frequently indicated only by initials. The fact that this roll was not numbered after the first 495 names were listed made It easier to insert names.

In conclusion, books 1 and 2 of the 1893 payment rolls in the Chickasaw Nation were poorly kept, and reflected very much upon the ability of the Chickasaw authorities to transact business in a systematic manner. I am Inclined to think that the entry of a name upon this roll should not count particularly in favor of an individual. I am also inclined to think that the omission of a name from the roll might have resulted from corrupt causes. The allegations presented by J. W. F. Howard are not improbable, generally speaking. On the flyleaf of the last page of the book. No. 229. are a number of names, and in four cases payment was made to William Rennie. It seems remarkable that the name of the Wolf family should have been entered here In such an irregular manner. The name of Jonas Wolf and others appear. Payment was made to Gov. Wolf. If such an irregularity occurred in the enrollment of Gov. Wolf, what must have occurred in the case of some humble citizen?

Maytubby Roll. No. 7.

Entitled “Names of Chickasaw families In Choctaw Nation registered by Peter Maytubby.” The names numbered consecutively, written on legal-cap paper, followed by columns headed. “Husband” “Wife” “Children” Number of persons of each kind footed in column. Writing excellent, pages in bad condition, occasionally, but rarely, names stricken out; another written in place. This roll is said to be a part of the 1893 payment roll, but it contains no evidence on its face showing to what it relates. The handwriting continues uniform for several pages, then changes to another handwriting and then to another. The numbers have been rewritten—’hat is, corrected—to show change in total. The name of Joseph Nelson is lined out without explanation: the name of Nelson Thompson, or Johnson. No. 380 and No. 390 not legible, lined out with no explanation. The name of Susan Underwood added in pencil at last page of part 1.

Maytubby Roll No. 2, 1893.

Names on loose sheets of paper, badly broken; one is a letterhead of H. H. Burris, national auditor, another has the same heading except that H. H. Burris is lined out and C. D. Carter substituted. This part in precarious condition. Commission has typewritten copies of this roll, both parts. This roll was receive by the commission in September or October 1898. They were not arranged in alphabetical order and were never Indexed. When reference was made to them by the Dawes Commission the whole list had to be examined. Part 1 has 402 numbered names. There are something like 40 additional names. Never in any case have I found a notation initialed or signed and in but two cases have I found thus far any explanation of the lining out of a name.

See: 1893 Peter Maytubby’s Roll

Ieshatubby Roll.

The following is a correct list of the names of Chickasaws registered by Ieshatubby in the Choctaw Nation under act of June 20, 1893. The sheets are subdivided into columns for name, number of men, number of women, number of boys, number of girls, and for totals. Two names are lined out on page 1 and written in modified form, for instance, the name of Alexander Perryman is changed to Agnes Perryman. The name of Julius Bond is lined out on the second page. The names are not numbered. The name of Watie Nicholas is also lined out on page 3. The name of Solomon Owens mid Mary Myers lined out on page 4; also that of Viney Folsom. This roll does not show amount paid out or to whom payment was made. It consists of two sheets of legal-cap paper; some of the names are written in ink. others in pencil. The word “paid” is generally written or indicated by ditto marks in the column for totals. This roll was used by the Dawes Commission in enrollment work by referring to the whole roll, but was never indexed.

See: 1893 Ieshatubby Roll

1878 Chickasaw Annuity Roll.

Delivered to Commission to Five Civilized Tribes late in 1902 or early in 1903. (See Betty Lewis report of Jan. 24, 1903.) This roll consists of leaves, some of which are written upon legal cap, others upon ordinary large sheets; as received by the commission these leaves were not bound. Subsequently paper covers were attached bearing notations showing district or county, date, and sometimes by whom made. General plan of roll, but not so carried out in all cases: Name of county at top. and column for men, women, children, and totals. List for Musholatubbee district. Choctaw Nation (Chickasaws living in Choctaw Notion) begins with Coal County. Names arranged In alphabetical order, not consecutively, numbers to left of name, word “paid” occurs after some of the names, but many are followed by name of person to whom payment was made; although the word “paid” does not always appear, the name of some payee invariably does. Indian names frequent; payee generally some other person than the enrolled citizen; to whom paid and name of payee in different ink and possibly in different handwriting. Frequent payments made to “Killcrease” also to Ben Jones and William L. Byrd. (Query: Was Byrd governor of the nation?) Rarely ever does the citizen appear as a payee. The name of Sebourne Underwood added without number in different-colored ink. Not all the names are numbered. System of numbering indicates names were taken from a numbered list and arranged in alphabetical order retaining numbers; pages uniformly neat: handwriting plain.

The second county is Gaines. The names of Pitchlynn, J. N., and Pitchlynn, H. R., written in different ink and possibly different writing from that usually employed. Nearly all of some pages show payment to said Killcrease. Amount of payment not shown. The name of Otemaya crossed out and words “in Skullyville” added in different ink and not signed. After name of Noel Peter are found the words “Not known as Chickasaws.” In different-colored Ink. Following this is further note, “This person was afterward found to be a Chickasaw and his annuity was sent to J. J. McAlester.”

Following Gaines County comes San Bois County, in which said Noel Peter Is listed. The name of Turner Brashears appears written in pencil: after It the words “wife and children” in ink, and above the latter words the words “not allowed.” At the end of same line appears name of Robert L. Boyd, lined out without explanation. The next name after Turner Brashears is that of Catherine Miller, appearing in pencil, followed by the name of George D. James in the column of payee. Upon this page Killcrease draws 11 payments out of a total of 12.

Under Skullyville County is also found, in addition to the names of said Turner and Miller, the name of N. F. or U. F. Krebs, not numbered, and written in different hand and different ink. All payments on this page to Killcrease and McAlester.

Next follows Sugar Loaf County. Out of a total of 17 payments on the first page of this county 15 were made to Killcrease, the others to Ben Jones. Following the list of names is the word “recapitulated” and a total of 817. from which 5 is subtracted without explanation, leaving a total of 812. Following this is a certificate: “I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct list of persons registered in Masholatubby district. Choctaw Nation, for Chickasaw annuity, 1878. December 19, 1878. Simpson Killcrease, register of Masholatubby district, Choctaw Nation.”

Recapitulating. 812, total.
Albert W. Ferry, 3, and 815.

(note.—The fact that this registry was made by Simpson Killcrease explains, in all probability, who the Killcrease was who appears as payee in n large majority of cases. It is observed that the enumerator signs his name Killcrease, whereas the name of the payee is always noted in n different but uniform writing as Kilcrease. The total number registered in the Masholatubby district is approximately 364, but payment was made to 812 or 815. The names of women do not appear on the 1878 annuity roll unless separate heads of families or living alone: at least this seems to be the case. Names of children do not appear, only the number of them being given. This is important, because we have no rolls between the years 1878 and 1893 in the Chickasaw Nation, a period of 15 years. During this lapse of time many minors became adults, as a matter of course, as well as heads of families. Under the ruling of the Secretary of the Interior a person could not be enrolled as a Choctaw or Chickasaw whose name did not appear upon tribal rolls or in some act or decree of admission or enrollment unless they were minors when the roll was prepared.)

Capt. Henderson Greenwood’s Annuity Roll. December 19. 1878.

Tishomingo County.—The names on this roll are numbered consecutively, but not arranged in alphabetical order. There are columns following the names, but nothing to indicate the purpose of each column. Evidently, however, they are designed to show the number of persons in the family; that is to say, father, mother, and number of children, male and female, respectively. The last column is reserved for the names of payees. This county contains a list of 246 names, the recapitulation showing 774 persons, to which is added the name of Albert Gamble, making 775. The roll is certified to by Henderson Greenwood, December 19. 1878. as register of Tishomingo County.

Register of Pontotoc County, Chickasaw Nation, for annuity of 1878.

Here the names are numbered consecutively but not arranged alphabetically. There are three columns, one for males, one for females, and one for totals, in each family. Apparently none but heads of families or persons living alone appear on lists. With one or two exceptions all payments on the first page were made to William L. Byrd. Nearly all on the second page were made to the same person, with the exception of three to Phillips and one to Rooks. After the name of Mrs. Wilson Frazier, No. 60, in the column for total the number 4 is stricken out and the number 3 appears above it, followed by the notation. “Person stricken off.” unsigned. After the name of James Priddy, No. 112, the numbers 3, 2. and 5, showing number of males, females, and total, respectively, are stricken out and the number 1 is substituted for males and 1 for females, followed by the notation “Allowed.” then “Old man allowed: wife and children are not.” This roll, as well as that for Tishomingo County, does not show the age of persons, nor does the Masholatubby roll or the 1893 rolls. The 1878 roll does not always show whether persons are adults or minors, but in some cases columns appear designated as for children. Total number of names for Pontotoc County is 450. Total number of persons 1,488, to which five others were added, making a total of 1,493. This roll was certified by F. Frazier, register of Pontotoc County. Chickasaw Nation, December 19. 1878.

Pickens County, 1878.

The first page of this roll is in poor condition; names written in lead pencil and “paid”; sometimes a plus sign follows the name. Numbers to right apparently indicate number of persons in family. Total on first page 48. The purpose of the first page is not clear, and it may have been regarded :is a temporary list. The second page begins with a list of names, starling with No. 1. These names are arranged in alphabetical order and are numbered consecutively. Columns for male heads of families, female heads of families, male children, female children, male orphans, female orphans, were extensive subdivions, evidently made to provide for enumeration of grandchildren. Here, as before, payment is frequently made to other than the persons on the roll. Total number, 727, with 4 deductions; net, 723; made by C. J. Hancock, register of Pickens County. On last page of this roll is the name J. C. Handcock. and following it are the names of—

John Fitchue 3 J.
Overtoil Love 9
Eastman Lewis 1
William Morris 4
Taylor Persevill 2
Whitsvill 2
Rhine Walker 4
Total 25

which Is multiplied by 975, and other computations not explained.

(Query: Were the names of these 8 persons entered on the index prepared by the Dawes Commission? The Dawes Commission did not prepare an index of the 1878 annuity roll. Some of said rolls were already arranged in alphabetical order. It was the practice of the commission in consulting this roll to examine the roll itself. This refers to all counties of this roll in the possession of the commission.)

Pushmataha District, Choctaw Nation.

Atoka County.—Columns showing man, woman, children, total. This list is not arranged in alphabetical order. The names are numbered consecutively. The name of the payee is shown. On a number of pages all or nearly all, payments were made to Joe Phillips. This is true for several pages. Occasionally the name of the payee is written in lead pencil. Number 198 of this district. Charley Sanguine, or Charley Sanguine, lined out and no explanation, likewise Bena Mashoya. No. 240.

Kiamitia County begins with No. 180 of this list. Blue County begins at No. 255. Jens Benton, three members of family, all lined out without explanation. Likewise No. 250. Francis Battice, three members; no explanation. No. 258, John Lewis, noted in different ink “Not allowed.” But after it is the further notation in pencil, “Paid Harkins”: eight members In this family, Nos. 266. 267, and 268. Jackson. Tobias, and Osborn Frazier, and No. 271. Esau Frazier, lined out; also families of said persons; no explanation. No. 273, Melvina Folsom, lined out and no explanation. Likewise No. 296, Melvina Lewis, lined out, yet after it appears “Paid O. Harkins.” No. 304, Felix Henry and family, total 3 persons, lined out: no explanation.

Total number in Pushmataha district, 1,002; space left for register to sign certificate left blank; following blank form of certificate are the names of a number of persons, making a total of 1,034. Here, as elsewhere. It Is to be borne in mind that names of children do not appear and that names of women when members of a family having a recognized citizen as its head are omitted.

On the back of the flyleaf of the last page of this roll is the name of E. J. Pitchlynn; following it is a list of members and the sum of same. Following this in faint lead pencil are the names of—

Moses Lowring 3
Dixon Durant 1
Emily Fletcher 1
Mrs. Joel Kemp 2
Tom McGee 1
Sum of all 1,050

No explanation as to these names; if part of roll, not regularly so.

Panola County.—This roll consists of sheets of legal-cap paper: the paper is old and in rather poor condition, but generally speaking writing is legible. It was prepared by David W. Colbert. The roll has columns for heads of families and number of chi4dren and total. The heads of families are numbered in the right-hand margin, contrary to the usual practice. Total number of persons. 408; certified to by David W. Colbert under date of December 19, 1878. One leaf of roll is detached and given names of several citizens torn off.

(Query: What was the amount paid per capita and under what act?)
(note. It must have required much painstaking effort for the employees of the Dawes Commission to examine this list. It is not alphabetically arranged.)

The commission has typewritten copies of the 1878 annuity roll.

How many counties are short? How many should be? Name counties not given; also those given.

(There are four Chickasaw counties: Pontotoc, Panola, Tishomingo, and Pickens. beside the Chickasaws living in the Choctaw Nation. There are in the possession of this office rolls showing the 1878 annuity payment in all of these counties. The Choctaw Nation was, however, divided into three districts, and the office has rolls showing this payment In two districts only. Masholatubby district and Pushmataha district. A little later the nation was divided by the Chickasaws for registration into first, second, and third districts, but it is not known how these districts compare with Pushmataha and Masholatubby’s districts above referred to, or whether the nation might have been divided into only the two districts at the time of the 1878 payment.)

Method of making and filing census cards In Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations.

Q. Were all census cards made up from typewritten records? How many exceptions to this rule?—A. Many of the cards, particularly during the years 1898 and 1899, were made up by some member of the commission and an assistant. The commissioner would swear the witness or applicant and ask the questions. The exact answers would not be noted, but the substance of the same as understood by the commission and his assistant would be noted upon the cards In so far as necessary to supply the data provided for. The cards, with the exception of the first 50 Chickasaw and the first 10 or 12 Choctaw cards, bear notation in the lower right-hand corner, showing the date of the making of the application, which date for the first years, speaking approximately, coincided with the ranking of the card. Notations were also made upon the card showing action by the commission and by the department. The cards do not, however, in all cases show every action. This is said, bearing in mind that it was the aim of the commission, to note the last action of the department in all cases.

The regular work of making cards was carried out by means of cards of three classes:

First. Straight cards upon which were listed those persons having tribal enrollment and having a prima facie right to enrollment and against whom no protest was made by the representatives of the tribes.

Second. Doubtful cards on which were placed the names of persons showing tribal enrollment or not, as might be, whose cases were protested by the representatives of the tribes or were doubtful as to the showing made. For example, non-residence. failure to prove Indian blood or adoption, and the like.

Third. R cards upon which were listed the names of persons who either made no claim to tribal enrollment or who could make no showing of tribal recognition and right to enrollment. Generally speaking the people who were listed on these cards were people who were prima facie not entitled to enrollment.

The letter “R” stood primarily for “Rejected,” but in the course of a very short time this list was made to include cards where rejections had not occurred. Probably this series in its inception was based upon decisions rendered by Commissioner McKennon when after a brief examination he Immediately rendered a decision “Enrollment refused.”

Some of the persons whose names were listed upon “D” and “R” cards were afterward found entitled to enrollment and after decisions were rendered in their favor their names were transferred to straight cards. Proper information was placed upon such “D” and “R” cards showing what disposition was made of the cases and the number of the straight card to which their names were then transferred, so that it may occur in a number of cases that there are two cards for one name but not in the same series.

As the cards are arranged at this day—that Is to say, subsequent to the close of the work of enrollment—it will be found that as they are now arranged there are separate boxes for the straight cards, the “D” cards and the “R” cards. There are approximately 6,084 straight Choctaw cards, 1,009 “D” cards, and 756 “R” cards.

The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, under the act of Congress approved June 10, 1806, were directed to enroll persons found by them to be entitled to enrollment, but as a matter of fact they never got along sufficiently with the work to enroll any such persons. Subsequently under later acts persons who were found to be entitled were placed upon the rolls prepared by the commission. The final approved rolls contain the names of persons who were admitted by the commission in 1896 and no appeal taken. As to such persons no distinction was made as to whether notice was necessary to both nations. Consequently there are a line of cases decided by the Dawes Commission where the right to enrollment was accorded without reference to notice and another line of cases decided by the citizenship court which were carried on appeal beyond the Dawes Commission where the doctrine of notice to both nations was followed. In other words, the work as a whole was disposed of with respect to persons admitted in 1896 under two different rules.

Leamon Welch. Choctaw intermarried roll No. 1308. card No. 5883, enrolled an a citizen by intermarriage of the Choctaw Nation; right to enrollment based upon marriage with Ed E. Walker, recognized and enrolled citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation, identified upon the 1893 pay roll; after his death in 1890 his widow married William Welch, a white noncitizen. Compare the facts in this case with the views expressed by the Attorney General in the opinion of February 19,1907, and by Mr. Lawrence, of the Department of Justice, In the memorandum prepared by him in the Mary Elizabeth Martin case, for the purpose of determining whether those opinions were in harmony with the practice of the commission and of the department. I am informed that Intermarried citizens whose cases were similar to this case were uniformly enrolled by the commission. The fact that a subsequent marriage to a noncitizen was not regarded under the ruling of the department as a bar to final enrollment upon the approved roll.

One of the causes of the delay in the work was that numerous cases were held up upon the request of the attorneys for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations under instructions from the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of determining what would be the action of the citizenship court upon analogous cases.

(note.—I have a list of cases where action was suspended and reference to letters ordering such action in my notes at Washington.)

For opinion of citizenship court on this question see case of Thomas Brinnon (case No. 23 on South McAlester docket). Also opinion of department in the case of Thornton D. Pearce of May 21, 1904 (I. T. D., 4060-1904). The United States courts in Indian Territory also passed upon this question. See decision of Judge Clayton in the Robinson case.

This woman referred to above—Leamon Welch—was finally enrolled, but the names of her two children by her white husband—Bertha and Elois Welch— were lined out and their enrollment was refused. This must have been done upon the theory that her citizenship was personal to her only.

In this case there are two cards, one the original doubtful card and the other the final straight card upon which decision in favor of Leamon Welch is noted. The first card bears the stamp granted as to the mother and refused as to her other two children.

With this memorandum furnish copy of straight card showing degree of Indian blood; also copy of a Mississippi Choctaw R card showing degree of blood.

Some provision should be made allowing persons who were identified as Mississippi Choctaws but who did not have the usual time to remove to the nation to move thereto and establish residence therein; for example, there were several families who were identified within the last week preceding March 4, 1907, In whose cases removal to the nation was physically impossible before March 4, 1907.

Louana Bouaham.
Oliver Sills.
Lizzie Sills.
Perry Sills.
Sallie Charlas.
Minnie Charlas.
Bettie Charlas.
Louisa Charlas.
James Charlas.
Clemogene Farve.
Elizabeth Farve.
Mitchell C. Adams.

The date of the identification of these persons was in February or March, 1907, and consequently there was no time for their removal and for the commissioner to take evidence of their settlement in the nation before the final closing of the work.

Note.—Refer to reports of Dawes Commission, showing number and page of same, where statistics may be found relative to—

(a) Total number of Choctaw and Chickasaw applicants by blood and intermarriage before the commission in 1896.
(b) Number of each class admitted.
(c) Number of each class denied.
(d) Number of appealed cases.
(e) Number of cases not appealed.
(f) Number of cases and persons where decisions of the commission were affirmed.
(g) Number of eases and persons where decisions were reversed.

Pages 16 and 17 of the Ninth Annual Report of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for the year 1902 give the information requested except as to number of cases involved before the commission in 1896 and the number of cases appealed and number not appealed. This latter information does not appear to have been prepared from the data, and it is impracticable to procure It at this time without a long and tedious examination of the 1896 applications.

Number of admitted Choctaws and Chickasaws:

Number of granted Choctaw enrollment cases 5,320
Number of persons enrolled as Choctaws by blood and intermarriage 17,899
Number of cases refused 1,750
Number of persons refused as Choctaws by blood and Intermarriage 5,201

Total number cases 7,070

Total number persons who were applicants for enrollment as Choctaws by blood and Intermarriage 23,100

(This does not include minor and newborn Choctaws under acts of Mar. 3, 1905, and Apr. 26, 1906, and is estimated as nearly as may be without actual count.)

Number of granted Chickasaw enrollment cases 1,800
Number of persons enrolled us Chickasaws by blood and Intermarriage 5,707
Number of cases refused 500
Number of persons refused as Chickasaws by blood and intermarriage  1,793

Total number cases: 2,300

Total number of persons who were applicants for enrollment as Chickasaws by blood and intermarriage 7,500

(This does not include newborn and minor Chickasaws under acts of Mar. 3, 1905. and Apr. 26, 1906. and is estimated as nearly as may be without actual count as to number of eases.)

Number of rejected Mississippi Choctaw cards 7,476

Mississippi Choctaw cards sometimes show one head of family identified and other rejected, both alleging full blood; sometimes one head of family is identified as a full blood, and other head and the children are denied.

As an example where one parent was Identified and one parent denied, with the children, we have the card of Calvin McMillan, M. C. R. 4215. Here the wife only, Mollie McMillan, was identified. (See Identified Mississippi Choctaw schedule, No. 210.) In this family there were 11 members, all of whom allege full blood, one of whom only was identified.

As a result there may be cases where Mississippi Choctaws of the half blood and upward, but less than full blood, have no recognized right to enrollment. What should be done with cases of this character, particularly where residence was established in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country prior to June 28, 1898? Perhaps in the most of such cases the applicants were, at the time of their applications, residents of Mississippi. In many cases, however, the families removed to the Choctaw-Chickasaw country after identification of one or more members. Should such Choctaw children receive no consideration? Ought not the Government to make an appropriation sufficient at least to purchase 40 acres of land for each of them?

The quantum of blood alleged for heads of families on 52 rejected cards taken consecutively appears as follows:

Heads of families alleging—
One thirty-second 9
Three sixty-fourths 1
One sixteenth 24
Three thirty-seconds 4. 2
One-eighth 12
Three-sixteenths 1
One-fourth 1
One-half 1
Three-fourths 1

Recapitulating, out of a total of 52 there are found to be only 4 heads of families who allege one-fourth or more Indian blood. The percentage of such rejected applicants would be a little over 7 per cent.

Under the act of Congress of April 26, 1906, the minor children of the Lafontain family, although of mixed Indian blood, were enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws. After the act of April 26, 1906, was construed by the department to admit of the enrollment of such mixed-blood children an effort was made in a portion of the cases—just how many I am unable to state—to enroll the children where the parents had been enrolled as Mississippi Choctaws. There was not sufficient time, however, to go back over the cases of all Identified and enrolled full-blood Choctaws and modify the decisions to meet the requirements of the new law. In this connection see opinion of Assistant Attorney General In the case of Addle Reed, James Charlas, minor son of Nicholas Charlas, whose identification was approved March 4, 1907.

In these last cases there was an opinion written and probably subsequent decision. Both were prepared by or with the assistance of Mr. Howell of the Assistant Attorney General’s office. This difference is due to the fact that the enrollment of such children was predicated upon laws subsequent to the Choctaw-Chickasaw agreement under which new applications were made. Upon the receipt of such applications the commission would dispose of the rights of the parties as their merits might appear, but In the absence of new applications under this subsequent law the commission did not. of its own motion, reexamine analogous cases.

Under the act of March 3, 1905. an unconscious injustice was penetrated, owing to the fact that the law was drawn so as to accord the right to enrollment only to the children of persons theretofore on approved rolls, overlooking the fact that there were other persons whose cases were of equal merits which had not been decided simply because not reached, but which were ultimately granted. This condition of affairs made it impossible to extend full relief in all cases, but an effort was made to correct the defect in the law by a provision in the act of April 26 1906 (34 Stat.. 137). whereby the right to enrollment was extended not only to the new-born children of enrolled citizens but also to the new-born children of other citizens having pending applications. After the latter act the commission made special effort to go back and take care of cases which could not receive attention under the act of March 3, 1903.

Provisions were made in various statutes which were construed to require applications to be made within n limited time. The word “application” strictly construed requires personal appearance, at least of the head of the family. In the course of the enrollment work, however, people from time to time would contend that they had filed applications. Many such persons had In fact written letters to the commission and the department, and not knowing enrollment proceedings thoroughly, to other offices—for example, to the Indian agent. I have even been informed by the officials of the United States court that people came frequently to them to make application. A question arose, therefore, as to what constituted an application within the meaning of the term as used in the law relating to enrollment. The index prepared by the Dawes Commission of persons who had made applications was confined to those persons who had made formal application, either in person or through some member of the family who appeared in person before some representative of the commission.

I am informed that when persons were claiming to have made application by letter, either by their own act or by the act of others, the commission caused an examination to be made of the index of letters received in order to test the accuracy of the claim. During the course of the enrollment work letters were frequently received by the department, in which persons claimed to he entitled to enrollment; sometimes their claims were clearly indicated as to what persons they thought were entitled to enrollment: at other times their statements were vague and uncertain, and disclosed only that there was a member of the family for whom enrollment was desired. ‘These letters were “referred to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes for appropriate action.” Upon receipt of such letters the commission examined its records to ascertain whether or not there was an existing application of record, but did not treat such letters as applications unless followed up by further communication or evidence. The position of the commission and of the department can best be understood perhaps by a reference to cases such as the Annie L. Dendy ease. In adjudicating cases it was the practice of the commission to deny enrollment to persons whose names did not appear upon its records as having made application in due time. In so doing no examination was made by the commission until the spring of 1906 of applications filed under the act of June 10, 1896. On the whole, the construction of the law relating to making of applications was rather strict, at least, until the Dendy case.

The commission was not furnished by the tribal authorities with list of persons admitted by decrees of tribal courts and acts of tribal council, and no index was made of the names of such persons appearing in the Choctaw and Chickasaw law books. Doubtless in the majority of cases the names of such persons were entered upon the census or some other tribal rolls, but not necessarily so.

Out of a total of 30 cards (Mississippi Choctaws) it was found that where one of the heads of the family was identified that all of the children were so identified in 29 cases: in the other 7 cases It was found that the children were mixed bloods. The proportion of straight full-blood cases would therefore be to the whole number of cases as 29 to 36. Or, this would mean that if the mixed-blood children of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws are to be accorded any rights whatever at the expense of the Choctaw Nation or the United States that only about 18 or 20 per cent of the enrolled Mississippi Choctaw cases would have to be taken up again, but It would not amount even to 20 per cent, because a considerable number of such cases were disposed of under the act of April 26, 1906, as explained above.

In connection with this last note it should be borne in mind that while there were approximately 2,000 persons identified as Mississippi Choctaws. the total number of such persons was embraced in 916 cards. Moreover, not all Identified Mississippi Choctaws removed to an established residence in the Choctaw-Chickasaw country so as to be entitled to final enrollment. The word “enrolled” should not be confused with the word “identified.”

Consequently it would be necessary to give further consideration only to 20 per cent (or less) of cases of enrolled Mississippi Choctaws. There were about 1,600 persons finally enrolled, and there must have been from 300 to 500 cases of such character; therefore there would be not more than 20 per cent, or from 60 to 100 eases of mixed-blood children, a portion of which have already been disposed of.

Act of June 10, 1896.

Examined application of Joanna Williams. No. 506. I find on the jacket, in pencil, “See decision on paper within.” This is not signed. Following it is a line separating it from a further notice, which reads as follows: “Filed Sept. 7, 1896. A. S. McKennon. commissioner.” Then follows another line and another notation, ‘”No answer.” in pencil. At the bottom of the jacket appears the name of J. S. Arnote, attorney, South McAlester, Ind. T. On the back of the application itself is found the title of the case, and following it these words: “Admit Joanna Williams and Eddie Waldron as citizens by blood.” This notation is not signed, and, I am informed, the sole and only decision rendered in the case. The writing is that of Commissioner McKennon. It was the custom of the commission after rendering decision to forward notice to the parties in interest on a printed form, in which was a blank wherein would be inserted the word “granted” or “denied” or “refused.” or some equivalent expression. This notice would be signed by Mr. Jacoway, who was then secretary to the commission. In these cases no oral testimony was taken. The applicants would present a petition in writing; the nation would be allowed to file answer, and pleadings would be supported by such affidavits as parties saw fit to file. Upon the record so made up the decisions of the commission were rendered.

An index was made of the applications submitted under the act of June 10, 1890. These indexes were prepared partly prior to 1900, and some in 1902.

About the time of the decision of the department in the Joe and Dillard Perry case, as well as that of Allen Beagles, that applications made in 1896 were treated as applications under the act of June 28, 1898, and the subsequent agreements and acts.

In this particular case there was enclosed a certificate in writing signed by J. L. Garvin and E. W. Folsom, chief justice and associate justice of the Choctaw Nation, respectively, showing that the applicant made application to said court in 1874 and that their right to citizenship was then accorded by the court.

(note.—Ascertain whether these people were finally enrolled as citizens upon the approved roll. Eddie Waldron is enrolled as a citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation, his name appearing at No. 14430 upon the approved roll of such citizens, with his brother, Alonzo D. Williams, five of years. These are the children of Joanna Williams, who was admitted in the case above referred to, but who died prior to the time of making application for the enrollment of these children, September 4, 1899. Alonzo D. Williams, a son born after 1896, was enrolled upon proper evidence of birth.)

There was nothing done under this act looking to the enrollment of freedmen. There was no time. The notation in pencil directing enrollment was not dated: following such notation the clerk would enter the case upon the docket; some date was given as the date of the decision, but I am not able to ascertain whether the date of the pencil notation or the date of the entry on the docket, or some other date, was accepted as the date of the decision.

Total number of Choctaw and Chickasaws by Wood and intermarriage, including minors, but excluding Mississippi Choctaws.

Choctaws by blood enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902. 16, 227
Choctaws by blood enrolled under act of Mar. 3, 1905 1, 583
Choctaws by blood enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 956
Total Choctaws by blood of all classes 18,766
Choctaws by intermarriage 1,672

Total Choctaws 20,438

Chickasaws by blood enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1,1902  5,050
Chickasaws by blood enrolled under net of Mar. 3, 1905 578
Chickasaws by blood enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 331

Total enrolled Chickasaws by blood of all classes 5,968
Chickasaws by intermarriage 648

Total Chickasaws 6,616

Choctaw freedmen enrolled under acts of June 28, 1898, and July 1, 1902  5,546
Choctaw freedmen enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 473

Total enrolled Choctaw freedmen 6,019

Total enrolled Chickasaw freedmen 4,853

Identified Mississippi Choctaws  2,534
Enrolled Mississippi Choctaws 1,445
Mississippi Choctaws enrolled under act of Mar. 3, 1905 11
Mississippi. Choctaws enrolled under act of Apr. 26, 1906 187

Approximate number of cases of Choctaws by blood and intermarriage, excluding newborns and minors 7,070
Approximate number of cases of Chickasaws by blood and intermarriage, excluding newborns and minors 2,300

Approximate number of cases of Choctaw freedmen, excluding minors 1,664
Approximate number granted Choctaw freedmen cases 1,500
Approximate number refused Choctaw freedmen cases 164

Total 1,664

Total approximate number of Chickasaw freedmen cases 1, 596
Approximate number granted Chickasaw freedmen cases 1,446
Approximate number refused Chickasaw freedmen cases 150

Total 1,596

Total approximate number of Mississippi Choctaw cases 7,476
Approximate number granted Mississippi Choctaw cases 916
Approximate number refused Mississippi Choctaw cases 6, 560

Total 7,476

United States Congress. Five Civilized Tribes In Oklahoma, Reports of the Department of the Interior and Evidentiary Papers in support of S. 7625, a Bill for the Relief of Certain Members of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, Sixty-second Congress, Third Session. Department of the Interior, United States. 1913.

2 thoughts on “Data Relative to the Rolls of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations”

  1. The date given for the Ieshatubby Roll above, about halfway down the page is incorrect. It should be “June 20, 1893” rather than 1803 as shown.
    From the first sentence or line in the Ieshatubby Roll shown above, there is a typographical error in the date given (last word in the first line).

    “Ieshatubby Roll.
    The following is a correct list of the names of Chickasaws registered by Ieshatubby in the Choctaw Nation under act of June 20, 1803.”

    The year 1803 should be 1893.
    Thank you, MC_Shackelford

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Access Genealogy

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top