Virginia Savage and her children sought enrollment as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation through a petition to the Secretary of the Interior. Despite their inclusion on the 1893 leased district payment roll and the 1896 Chickasaw census roll, their application was denied under the 1898 Curtis Act for non-residency. Virginia Savage argued her lineage, citing relatives enrolled in the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations. The case was supported by the Chickasaw and Choctaw leadership but ultimately required Congressional intervention for enrollment. Their petition followed precedent established by prior legislative actions recognizing individuals under similar circumstances.
Class 2
Virginia Savage Et Al., Chickasaws
Virginia Savage and her children. This case is fully covered in “Hearings before Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, on H. R. 19279,” pages 33 to 39, inclusive. Also favorably reported upon in the Howell report.
Those entitled to enrollment are: Virginia Savage, James L. Savage, David L, Savage, Sarah Virginia Savage, Melvin F. Savage, Earl V. Savage, Ernest V. Savage, Omer Savage, Sylvia O. Savage, Mable F. Savage.
The contract of employment in this case is held by Fred Kincaid, of Ardmore, Okla.
Respectfully submitted.
Ballinger & Lee.
H. R. 19279, Exhibit A
PETITION FOR ENROLLMENT OF VIRGINIA SAVAGE ET AL .
[ Recommended by the governor of the Chickasaw Nation and the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation. ] ] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ,
COMMISSIONER TO THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES .
[ In the matter of the petition of Virginia Savage and her children to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior, asking that he recommend to the Congress of the United States that they be admitted to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation by an act of Congress. ]
PETITION TO THE SECRETARY .
Come now your petitioners herein, Virginia Savage and her children, by and through their attorney in fact, Fred V. Kinkade, of Ardmore, Ind. T., and respectfully request the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that he recommend to the Congress of the United States that the names of your petitioners herein, to wit : Virginia Savage, James L. Savage, David L. Savage, Sarah Virginia Savage, Melvin F. Savage, Earl V. Savage, Ernest V. Savage, Omer Savage, Sylvia O. Savage, and Mable F. Savage, be added to the rolls of the citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians, and in support thereof would respectfully show the following :
First. That on the 20th day of February, 1901, Virginia Savage, representing herself and her children, appeared before the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes at Muskogee, Indian Territory, and then and there, made application for the enrollment of herself, and her children, as citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians .
Second. That on the 10th day of January, 1903, the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes rendered its opinion denying said application under a portion of section 21 of the act of Congress approved June 28, 1898, which provides as follows : ” No person shall be enrolled who has not heretofore removed to and in good faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship * * ” which said decision was erroneous and contrary to former decisons of the department .
Third. That on the 15th day of July, 1905, the Department of the Interior rendered its decision confirming the decision of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes hereinbefore referred to .
Fourth. That on or about the 12th day of March, 1906, your petitioners herein filed with the department, through their attorneys, Riley & Phillips, their motion to review said decision .
Fifth. That on the 13th day of February, 1907, and during the rush of business in closing the rolls of citizenship, said motion was passed upon adverse to these claimants, your petitioners herein, without due consideration to their rights, and contrary to former rulings of the department .
Sixth. That on or about the 28th day of May, 1907, these claimants, your petitioners herein, through their attorney, Chilion Riley, filed their motion to set aside and protest against said judgment becoming final .
Seventh. That on the 17th day of June, 1907, said motion and protest was dismissed by the department, the department holding that it was, at that time, without authority to take any action whatever in citizenship matters, all of which will more fully appear from a certified copy of the enrollment card of Virginia Savage, and her children, which is hereto attached and made a part hereof .
Eighth. Your petitioners would therefore respectfully state to the department that they have exhausted their remedy at law without avail, and in order to secure to them their birthright it now becomes necessary to petition the department to recommend their admission by an act of Congress .
Your petitioner, Virginia Savage, would respectfully state and show to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that she was born in the Chickasaw Nation, Ind. T., and resided there for many years, and that she has never abandoned her home in the Chickasaw Nation, although, on account of ill health, she has found it necessary to live in Colorado for a number of years .
Your petitioner, Virginia Savage, would further state and show to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that her brother, Florence Carter, is a duly enrolled and approved citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians, and his name appears upon the approved roll of such citizens opposite No. 4911 ; that her sister, Ida Wigley, is a duly enrolled and approved citizen by blood of the Choctaw Nation or tribe of Indians, and that her name appears as ” Ida Womack ” opposite No. 393 upon the final roll of such citizens .
Your petitioner, Virginia Savage, would further state and show to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that her uncle on the maternal side, and from whence she obtains her Indian blood, James G. Allen, is a duly enrolled and approved citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians and that his name appears opposite No. 730 upon the final roll of such citizens .
Your petitioner, Virginia Savage, would further state and show to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that her uncle on the maternal side and from whence she obtains her Indian blood, Winfield Scott Allen, is a duly enrolled and approved citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians, and that his name appears opposite number 4942 upon the final roll of such citizens .
Your petitioner, Virginia Savage, would further state and show to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that her aunt on the maternal side and from which she obtains her Indian blood, Kittie Howard ( formerly Allen ), is a duly enrolled and approved citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians, and that her name appears opposite number 1328 upon the final roll of such citizens .
Your petitioner, Virginia Savage, would further state and show to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior that her cousin, Hon. Charles D. Carter ( Congressman elect from the Fourth Congressional District of the proposed State of Oklahoma ), is a duly enrolled and approved citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians, and that his name appears opposite number 1527 upon the final rolls of such citizens. And your petitioners herein, Virginia Savage and her children, would further state and show to the department that in making this petition for enrollment by Congress they are following a precedent established June 21, 1906, in that portion of the Indian appropriation bill which provides as follows, to wit :
” That the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes is hereby authorized to add the names of the following persons to the final roll of the citizens by blood of the Chickasaw Nation : Rebecca Pitts and Maggie Wade * No. 258, p. 17. )
( Public ,
And your petitioners herein, Virginia Savage and her children, would further state and show to the department that their said petition for enrollment by Congress is recommended by the governor of the Chickasaw Nation and by the principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, acting in their official capacity, their said recommendations being attached hereto and made a part hereof .
Wherefore your petitioners herein, Virginia Savage and her children, ask that this matter be fully considered by the honorable the Secretary of the Interior, and upon full and fair consideration that he recommend to the Congress of the United States that the petitioners herein be admitted to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation by act of Congress .
Respectfully submitted .
VIRGINIA SAVAGE, Principal Petitioner .
STATE OF COLORADO, County of Pueblo, ss :
I, Virginia Savage, the principal petitioner herein, being first duly sworn as the law directs, on my oath state that I am 43 years of age ; that I am a citizen by blood of the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians ; that I was born and reared in the Indian Territory, making my home there until after I was grown and married .
I further swear that I have read the petition to the honorable the Secretary of the Interior, to which this affidavit is attached, and that the matters and facts therein contained and set forth are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I further swear that I have never abandoned the Indian Territory as my home, but that I am temporarily residing in the State of Colorado on account of the health of myself and husband, and on the advice of our family physician .
VIRGINIA SAVAGE. Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 13th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1907. [ SEAL. ]
JACOB JEWELL ,
Notary Public within and for Pueblo County, Colo .
My commission expires July 20, 1908 .
TISHOMINGO, IND. T.
SIR : I, Douglas H. Johnston, governor of the Chickasaw Nation, acting in my official capacity as said governor, hereby respectfully recommend to the favorable consideraof the honorable the Secretary of the Interior and the Congress of the United States the petition of Virginia Savage and her children to be enrolled as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation by act of Congress. I am thoroughly satisfied that these people are possessed of Chickasaw blood and that they should be enrolled. Mrs. Savage and her children have always been recognized and treated as Chickasaws by the Chickasaw government .
Very respectfully, [ SEAL. ]
The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ,
D. H. JOHNSTON, Governor of the Chickasaw Nation .
Washington, D. C.
KINTA, IND. T.
SIR : I, Green McCurtain, principal chief of the Choctaw Nation, acting in my official capacity as said principal chief, do hereby respectfully recommend to the favorable consideration of the honorable the Secretary of the Interior and the Congress of the United States the petition of Virginia Savage and her children to be enrolled as citizens of the Chickasaw Nation by act of Congress. I am thoroughly satisfied that these people are possessed of Chickasaw blood and that they should be enrolled. Mrs. Savage and her children have always been recognized as Chickasaws. Very respectfully ,
[ SEAL. ]
The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C.
GREEN MCCURTAIN, Principal Chief Choctaw Nation .
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, COMMISSIONER TO THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES .
[ In the matter of the petition of Virginia Savage and her children, asking that the honorable the Secretary of the Interior recommend to Congress their admission to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation or tribe of Indians. ]
The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR :
Fred V. Kinkade, attorney for the petitioners herein, on behalf of the petitioners, desires to submit for the consideration of the honorable the Secretary of the Interior the following brief and argument supporting the claim of petitioners and the recommendations herein made .
BRIEF AND ARGUMENT .
The common law of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, according to which law the children of parents who are members of the tribe take naturally by birth without affirmative statutory legislation, the status of their parents ; owe allegiance to the same tribe and are subject to the same jurisdiction. There is an entire absence in the statutory laws of these two nations relative to the children of any kind of parentage ; but among them, as among all other nations, the child acquires its parents ‘ citizenship status without affirmative words to that effect ; such affirmative words being, even if they were used, surplusage merely, and such we also believe to be the common law of all nations .
We believe that the commission and the department erred in the construction of that portion of section 21 of the act of Congress of June 28, 1898, as follows : ” No person shall be enrolled who has not heretofore removed to and in good faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship
We respectfully submit that the names of all the applicants then living will be found upon the 1893 leased district payment roll of the Chickasaw citizens ; that the names of all the applicants then living appear upon the 1896 Chickasaw census roll ; that their enrollment on said tribal rolls was affirmed by the act of Congress of June 10, 1896 ( 29 Stat., 321 ), and that their said enrollments on the 1893 and 1896 rolls were at two different times affirmed by acts of the Chickasaw legislature. These applicants, being on the authenticated rolls of the citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, can not be refused for nonresidence .
Under the decision of the department in the Choctaw case of Wiley Adams ( and others following ) the only way those applicants can be refused enrollment at this time is to show that their names appear upon the tribal rolls ” by fraud or without authority of law. ” In said case the department, after a reference to the act of Congress of June 28, 1898 ( 30 Stat., 495 ), held :
66 * * * Under this act the only power the commission has is to strike his name from the rolls, provided it is made to appear that it was placed thereon by fraud or without authority of law ‘
There is absolutely no charge of ” fraud ” in the record in this ( Savage ) case ; neither does the nation allege that their names are on the tribal rolls without authority of law. These are the undisputed facts in the Savage case, and in view thereof, we can not agree with the decision of the commission and the department, or the finding of facts therein. The principal applicant in this case, Virgínia Savage, is a native born Chickasaw, born and principally reared in the Chickasaw Nation born to Chickasaw allegiance reared in said nation until adverse circumstances and the will of God drove her therefrom before she was able to support and maintain herself — as will appear from the record herein, which is absolutely undisputed, and her name, and the names of her children, then living, appear upon the 1893 leased district payment roll and the 1896 census roll of the Chickasaw people, with the full knowledge and consent of the Chickasaw Nation ; and their enrollment upon each of said rolls has been approved by the Chickasaw legislature .
The act of Congress of February 4, 1887, made all Indians residing outside the Indian Territory citizens of the United States, but at the same time protected them in their property rights. That act, with an amendment of March 3, 1901, inclosed in brackets, reads as follows :
” Every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States to whom allotments shall have been made under the provisions of this act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life ( and every Indian in the Indian Territory ), is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States, and is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens, whether such Indian has been or not, by birth or otherwise, a member of any tribe of Indians within the territorial limits of the United States without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting the right of any such Indian to tribal or other property. ( Sup. Rev. Stats., vol. 1, pp. 536. )
The department, in an opinion rendered in the Cherokee case of Joseph D. Yearigan, et al. ( I. T. D. 4398-1903 ), held as follows :
” The applicants being native born citizens, borne on the Cherokee rolls, are therefore entitled to enrollment, unless they have forfeited their citizenship, or are within the third provision that : No person shall be enrolled who has not heretofore removed to and in good faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship. ‘
The provision ” No person, etc., ‘ ‘ just quoted in the opinion of the department is the one under which the applicants in the Savage case were rejected. This is plainly error, for it could not apply to a person born in the nation born to Chickasaw allegiance but only applies to such persons as had never been residents of the nation .
In the case of James Rhea et al., the principal applicant being a dentist, residing and practicing his profession in the State of Texas, and who had never prior to June 28, 1898, resided in the Choctaw Chickasaw country, the department on May 25, 1903 ( I. T. D. 3836—1903 ), held he should be enrolled, and cited the Yearigan case with approval .
These applicants are entitled to be enrolled for the reason that they are possessed of Chickasaw blood, and for the further reason that their names appear upon a tribal roll of the Chickasaw ” people ” which has been approved by an act of Congress and by the Chickasaw legislature. The governor of the Chickasaw Nation, in a letter to the commission, dated July 22, 1897, said :
” We have only one authenticated roll of citizens, and that is the one approved by the legislature in 1896. “
The names of the applicants herein appearing on the 1896 census roll of the Chickasaw ” people, ” which was approved by the legislature thereof, they are at this time estopped from alleging that the names of Virginia Savage and her descendants appear thereon ” by fraud or without authority of law. “
There is, as we believe, only one question in this case, viz, Are the applicants herein, and more especially the principal applicant, to be barred of their clear birthright by an erroneous interpretation of paragraph 9, section 21, act of Congress, June 28, 1898 ( supra ) ?
The commission and the department were, by legislation, directed to give due force and effect to the Indian usages, customs, and laws. What were the customs of the Chickasaw people ? It has always been the custom of the Indians to enroll and recognize native born citizens and their descendants and to extend to them the rights and privileges of citizenship regardless of where they live. This is a fact which can not be disputed. When the roll of 1893 was made the applicants in this case were then living in the State of Colorado, but nevertheless they were placed upon that roll by the tribal authorities and payment of the leased district money was made to them. They were still residents of that State at the time of the making of the 1896 census roll of Chickasaw people, and notwithstanding this fact they were placed upon this roll by the tribal authorities. This, in our opinion, shows the custom of the nations .
We would in this connection invite departmental attention to the opinion of the Assistant Attorney General, approved July 8, 1903, relative to force and effect to be given to the Cherokee constitution, and referring to the act of June 28, 1898 ( supra ), says :
” The proper construction of paragraph 9, referred to, is aided by tracing the course of thought of Congress through the several paragraphs preceding it. Paragraphs 1 and 2 in terms relate to the Cherokees. Congress then considers the case of the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, the freedmen of the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw tribes. Then, in paragraph 8 is considered the case of persons claiming tribal relations in more than one of their communities. Paragraph 9, above quoted, then follows :
” The history of these tribes discloses the purpose of this provision. Some of them had become divided, a portion of them remaining in their old seats known as the ‘ Eastern Band of Cherokees, ‘ ‘ Mississippi Choctaws, ‘ etc. These bands, who had not removed to the new seats, began to assert interest in the lands, or funds arising from their disposal. There were also cases of adoption by tribal action of persons who had never identified themselves with the tribes. To preclude such claims by those who in no way cooperated in the natural development, Congress provided that no person should be enrolled who had not removed to and in good faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship .
” The provision has no reference to such person as had been, at some time, in good faith resident of the nation, but for some temporary purpose, without intent to abjure citizenship, or to permanently sever his connection with the nation, was absent therefrom at the passage of the act. ( John D. Yearigan ; opinion Assistant Attorney General ; March 15, 1903. )
” It is therefore the opinion of this office that due consideration is to be given by the commission to the constitution, laws, usages, and rolls of the several tribes, and that the act of June 28, 1898 ( supra ), should not be considered by the commission as its sole guide, except in such cases as the Indian laws are in express terms, or by necessary implication, adopted by Congress ; but that, on the contrary, the Indian constitution, usages, laws, and rolls should be duly considered, and should be disregarded only when irreconcilable with the act of Congress, the latter being, in such cases, controlling upon the commission. “
There can be no doubt but what this is the true construction of the law. That portion of the act of Congress under which the applicants in this ( Savage ) case were refused could not, and does not, bar from enrollment a person born in the nationborn to the allegiance of the Chickasaw Nation, and borne upon the tribal rolls with the full knowledge and consent of the Chickasaw Nation .
The principal applicant has testified under oath before the commission that she has at all times claimed citizenship, and the nation as her home. This evidence is absolutely undisputed .
Departmental attention is further directed to an opinion rendered by Hon. Thomas Ryan, Acting Secretary of the Interior, June 10, 1903 ( I. T. D. 3886-1903 ), holding : ” There is no claim that the names of these applicants were placed upon said roll through fraud. It is clear that they were eligible to citizenship by descent and blood, and their recognition by the tribal authorities as citizens and the entry of their names upon the tribal rolls having thus received the approval of the legislature of the nation, can not be regarded as without authority of law. “
The enrollment of the applicants in the Savage case received the approval of the Chickasaw legislature, as will more fully appear from an act of the same hereafter quoted .