Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

The Great Seal of the Choctaw Nation
RSS

"MCR" info provided to person(s)

Sonya Deaton - (Pistubbee) Sonya Deaton - (Pistubbee)

posted on February 11

MC"R" Mississippi Choctaw “Rejected” Does not mean that an MCR Mississippi Choctaw Claimant was not’ enrolled into the Choctaw Nation Tribe" By Jurisdiction as a Signed 14th Article Mississippi Choctaw,
In order for a Choctaw to make Dawes Commission “Application” for his/her “Application” for their I.T.D. Indian Territory Division Lands, the applicant" had to first be “Enrolled” into the Choctaw Nation" Tribe by
Affidavit’ MC-R- Enrollment Card- Signed by Stenographer’

These Enrollment Cards have no “MCR attached to a Roll Number” Then the Final Dawes Commission “Application” for I.T.D. Indian Territory Land Decision Depending on the “Final” Removal and Proven Residence within the I.T.D. Indian Territory Land Decision-within time provided by the Dawes Commission. Many MCR- Refused 14th Article Claimants never removed,
but was still enrolled into the Choctaw Nation Tribe by Choctaw Nation Enrollment Card Signed by Stenographer, “For The Identification As Mississippi Choctaw”

Research>
>Records of the testimonial case files-
MCR-[case number]

Then Research Final Rolls of the Dawes Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes for a MC-R- “Enrollment Card”
[Mississippi Choctaw Enrollment Card- Signed by Stenographer]

RETRIEVE from,

> national archives
> genealogy office
> ancestry.com is a good source to info.
a Copy of Records
> vital records,
birth & death (obituary) records
marriage & divorce records
your I.D.
social security card(s)
> enrollment card approved by the secretary of D.O.I.
card info will be in the records of the case file
{mcr testimonial cases file]
the FinalRolls of the Dawes Rolls
“commission to the Five Ciilized Tribes”

TRACE YOUR BLOOD LINE TO THE NEAREST ANCESTOR ENROLLED

Leo Pergson Leo Pergson

posted on February 13 and updated on February 14

WITH STANDING MISSISSIPPI CHOCTAW RESPECT
OUR PROUD MEMBERS OF CHOCTAW NATION[S]

Leo Pergson Su-Quah-Natch-Ah Band et.,al., Members of “Mississippi Choctaw Claimants”

MCR-14th Article Claimants- et.,al., Members of Mississippi Choctaw “Claimants”

Aug 1, 1912 S-Bill 7625- MCR-14th Article Claimants-

Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that these people are Indians, children of Recognized Indians, and born in the Choctaw Nation; that this made them citizens of the nation,and that no admission by an Indian council could add to their rights; that they should not be deprived of their rights because of an act of Congress conceived by attorneys for the nations who were being paid per head for all persons they could keep off the roll and enacted by Congress without any Member of Congress in the House or Senate realizing its effects- the act of May 31, 1900.

[Sic] Aug 1, 1912 S-Bill 7625-

Vaughn – Duncan Consolidated Cases, M. C. R
This page is part of a larger collection.
Access the full collection at Five Civilized Tribes In Oklahoma.

Native American Records
Given:
Surname:

Robert L. Vaughn Et Al., M. C. R. 340. Annie M. Duncan Et Al., M. C. R. 339.

June 19, 1900. Applications were made to the commission at Colbert, Ind. Ter., for the enrollment of Robert L. Vaughn and his minor children, Edna A. Vaughn, Arthur C. Vaughn, Walter A. Vaughn, Victor K. Vaughn, Ora M. Vaughn, Mary J. Vaughn, Robert Vaughn,and for the enrollment of Annie M. Duncan and her minor children, Jesse Duncan, Robert L. Duncan, Mary E. Duncan, as Mississippi
blood Choctaws.

Annie M. Duncan and Robert L. Vaughn, the two principal claimants, are brother and sister and claim through the same ancestors. ‘The examination of records show that when said applications were made the applicants testified to, among other, the following facts:

Annie M. Duncan, 30 years old, child of Allen Vaughn, half-blood Choctaw, and grandchild of
Alexander Vaughn, a full-blood Choctaw, who resided in the Choctaw Nation, Mississippi,
in 1830. Applicant, Annie M. Duncan, was born in the Choctaw Nation and had lived in the
Choctaw-Chickasaw Nations all her life; had been recognized by the Choctaw Indians as a
Choctaw, though not officially recognized by the Choctaw national authorities; had held and
improved land as other Choctaws; had never applied for enrollment or admission to citizenship in the nation prior to this application, as it had never been necessary, as she was a Choctaw Indian and her rights had never been disputed. She claimed that her grandfather was a beneficiary
under the fourteenth article of the treaty of 1830.

Robert L. Vaughn, 39 years old, testified that he was born and had lived in the nations all his life; was the son of Allen Vaughn, a half- breed and a grandson of Alexander Vaughn, a full blood, who took land under the treaty of 1830; that his rights as a Choctaw had never been disputed; that he had exercised all the rights of a Choctaw, but did not know whether his name appeared on any of the rolls. He stated that he applied to the commission in 1896, but his application was received
too late and was returned to him; that he again applied in 1899, at Atoka, for enrollment as a Choctaw Indian, and that he now applied for enrollment as a Mississippi Choctaw.

The applications in both of these cases were submitted for the enrollment of the claimants as Mississippi Choctaws because of the act of May 31,1900, which prohibited the commission from receiving, considering, or making any record of any application of any person not a recognized and enrolled member of the tribe. This act did not apply to Mississippi Choctaws who were beneficiaries or descendants or beneficiaries under article 14 of the treaty of 1830.

Other witnesses testified before the commission to the facts as stated by the claimants, and on August 21, 1902, the commission rendered its decision, in which it says:

It also appears that all of the said applicants claim rights in the Choctaw lands under article 14 of the treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded September 27, 1830, by reason of being descendants of one Alexander Vaughn, who is alleged to have been a full-blood Choctaw
and to have resided in the old Choctaw Nation, States of Mississippi and Alabama, in 1830.

It further appears from the evidence submitted in support of said applications and from the records In the possession of the commission that no one of said applicants has ever been enrolled as a member of the Choctaw Tribe by the Choctaw tribal authorities or admitted to Choctaw citizenship by a duly constituted court or committee of the Choctaw Nation, or by the Commission to the Five Civilized
Tribes, or by a decree of the United States court in Indian Territory under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 10, 1896.

From the records in the possession of the commission it is found that the name of one Alexander Vaughn appears upon page 27, volume 1, Court of Claims Record, The Choctaw Nation v. The United States, in a list of Choctaw Indians whose reservations were sold under article 14 of the treaty of 1830.

It Is further found that the name of one Alexander Vaughn appears on page 116 of volume 7, American State Papers, Public Lands, in a list of names of Choctaw Indians, heads of families, who resided in Greenwood Le Flore’s district, in the territory occupied by the Choctaws in 1830, and who had land in
cultivation, in exchange for which they were to receive stipulated tracts of land. The records referred to in no way relate to or show any compliance or attempted compliance on the part of the persons therein named
with the provisions of article 14 of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.

The commission therefore held that claimants were not, entitled to enrollment and rendered a decision denying them.

October 17, 1902. The decision of the Commission was approved by the Secretary.
————
Counsel for claimants respectfully submit that these people are Indians, children of Recognized Indians, and born in the Choctaw Nation; that this made them citizens of the nation, and that no admission by
an Indian council could add to their rights; that they should not be deprived of their rights because of an act of Congress conceived by attorneys for the nations who were being paid per head for all persons they could keep off the roll and enacted by Congress without any Member of Congress in the House or Senate realizing its effects the act of May 31, 1900.

The following persons are entitled to enrollment: Robert L. Vaughn, Edna A. Vaughn, Arthur C. Vaughn, Walter A. Vaughn, Victor K. Vaughn, Ore M. Vaughn, Mary J. Vaughn, Robert Vaughn, Annie M. Duncan, Jesse Duncan, Robert L. Duncan, Mary E. Duncan.

Respectfully submitted.
Walter S. Field, Attorney for Claimants.
——————
Source-
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. AccessGenealogy.com. Web. 13 February 2014.

attached:

Leo Pergson Leo Pergson

posted on February 14 and updated on February 14

MCR- 14th Article Claimants Under Act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 339, 340),

CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW ROLLS

Committee on Indian Affairs House of Representatives
HR- 19279 Hr- 19552 HR and HR 22830
Sixty Second Congress

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Washington D.C. Printing Office 1910-
[H. R. 19279, Sixty-first Congress, second session.]

A BILL For the relief of Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians.

REVIEW OF ENROLLMENT WORK UNDER THE VARIOUS LAWS OF
CONGRESS.

The pertinent provisions of the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 339, 340), were:
That said commission is further authorized and directed to proceed at once to
hear and determine the application of all persons who may apply to them for
citizenship in any of said nations, and after such hearing they shall determine
the right of such applicant to be so admitted and enrolled: Provided, however,
That such application Shall be made to such commissioners within three months
after the passage of thia act. The said commisson shall decide all such applications
within ninety days after the same shall be made. That in determining all such
applications said commission shall respect all laws of the several nations or
tribes, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, and all treaties with
either of said nations or tribes, and shall give due force and effect to the rolls,
usages, and customs of each of said nations or tribes: And provided further, That
the rolls of citizenship of the several tribes as now existing are hereby confirmed,
and any person who shall claim to be entitled to be added to said rolls as a citizen
of either of said tribes and whose right thereto haa either been denied or not acted
upon, or any citizen who may within three months from and after the passage of
this act desire such citizenship, may apply to the legally constituted court or
committee designated by the several tribes for such citizenship, and such court
or committee shall determine such application within thirty days from the date
hereof.

In the performance of such duties said commission shall have power and authority
to administer oaths, to issue process for and compel the attendance of witnesses,
and to send for persons and papers, and all depositions and affidavits and other
evidence in any form whatsoever heretofore taken where the witnesses giving said
testimony are dead or now residing beyond the limits of said Territory, and to use
even’ fair and reasonable means within their reach for the purpose of determining
the rights of persons claiming such citizenship, or to protect any of said nations
from fraud or wrong, and the rolls so prepared by them shall be hereafter held and
considered to be the true and correct rolls of persons entitled to the rights of
citizenship in said several tribes: Provided, That if the tribe, or any person, be
aggrieved with the decision of the tribal authorities or the commission provided
for in this act, it or he may appeal from such decision to the United States district
court: Provided, however, That the appeal shall be taken within sixty days, and
the judgment of the court shall be final.

That the said commission, after the expiration of six months, shall cause a complete
roll of citizenship of each of said nations to be made up from their records, and add
thereto the names of citizens whose right may be conferred under this act, and said
rolls shall be, and are hereby, made rolls of citizenship of said nations or tribes;
subject, however, to the determination of the United States courts, as provided
herein.

The commission is hereby required to file the lists of members as they finally
approve them with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to remain there for use as
the final judgment of the duly constituted authorities. And said commission shall
also make a roll of freedmen entitled to citizenship in said tribes and shall include
their names in the lists of members to be filed with the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs. And said commission is further authorized and directed to make a full
report to Congress of leases, tribal and individual, with the area, amount, and
value of the property leased and the amount received therefor, and by whom and
from whom said property is leased, and is further directed to make a full and
detailed report as to the excessive holdings of members of said tribes and others.
It will be observed—

(a) That this was a general law relating to not only the Choctaws and Chickasaws,
but to the Cherokee, Creeks, and Seminoles, .each nation holding its land under
different treaties and by different tenure, and the object of the law was to divide
the property among the rightful beneficiaries under the several treaties with the
different tribes.

(b) That all applications for citizenship in the Five Civilized Tribes were to be
submitted to the commissioners within three months after the passage of the act,
and the commissioners were not authorized to receive applications after
September 10, 1896.

© That the commissioners were to decide all applications within ninety days
after their submission.

(d) That the tribal rolls were confirmed, and the commission was not authorized to
strike any name from any tribal roll.

■(e) That in the adjudication of the applications the commission had no authority ===
to deny citizenship to any applicant entitled thereto under the treaties with or
laws of the United States or under Indian laws, usages, or customs not inconsistent
with the treaties with or laws of the United States. The only power given the
commission was to admit persons to citizenship whose rights thereto were denied
or not recognized by the tribal authorities. (Mary Elizabeth Martin, applicant for
enrollment as a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, Laws Affecting the Five Civilized
Tribes, 1893-1906, p. 159.)

(f) That six months after the passage of the act the rolls were to be completed,
and after said date the commission had no authority to adjudicate any case
thereunder.

(g) That within sixty days after the rendition of the decision by the commission
either the tribe or the claimant could appeal to the United States district court
from the decision of the commission, and the judgment of said court was made
final.

About 187,000 applications were submitted to the commission by claimants to
citizenship in the Five Civilized Tribes under this act. Owing to the time limit in
which to adjudicate each claim after submission, it was impossible for the
commission to give proper consideration to the claims presented.
Appeals were taken from the decisions of the commission to the United States
district court by either the tribal authorities or the claimant in many cases
affecting the rights of claimants to citizenship in each of the Five Civilized
Tribes. The appeals taken in Choctaw and Chickasaw cases affected the rights
of approximately 7,000 persons. The Choctaw and Chickasaw nations were
represented by able counsel, and the cases were heard in open court. More
than 4,000 Choctaw or Chickasaw claimants received judgments from the
United States district court adjudging them to be citizens of said nations.
In many of these cases the judgments of the United States district court
affirmed the decision of the commission holding the claimants to be citizens
of the Choctaw or Chickasaw nations. These judgments, under the statute,
were final. The judgments thus obtained were certified to the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes and the claimants duly enrolled.

Notwithstanding the judgments obtained in the United States district court were
final under the law’, Congress, by the act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat., 571, 591),
authorized appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. Appeals were
taken from the judgments of the United States district court in cases affecting
Citizenship rights in each of the Five Tribes. These cases were consolidated
and heard and considered by the Supreme Court as one case
(Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S., 476), and the judgments of the
United States district court were affirmed, at the October term, 1898. The
claimants immediately went into possession of their allotments, and in many
instances made valuable and lasting improvements thereon.
On January 17, 1901, the Principa1 Chief of the Choctaw Nation and the
governor of the Chickasaw Nation, pursuant to authorization contained
in acts of the Choctaw and Chickasaw councils (S. Doc. No. 372, 60th
Cong., 1st sess., p. 2), entered into an inchoate contract with Mansfield,
McMurray & Cornish, attorneys-at-law, with offices at McAlester, Ind. T.,
the sixth paragraph of which (id., p. 4) provided:

■Sixth, (a) That the compensation of the said Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish,
parties of the second part, under this contract, shall be nine per centum of the
value of the shares of tribal property which such of said so-called "court
claimants,’’ as hereinafter defined, as may be refused allotment or distribution
of tribal property would have received in the event of allotment or distribution
thereof to them, whether from past or future services to this end; and that, for
the purposes of this contract, it is agreed that the share of tribal property a
“court claimant would receive, in the event of allotment and distribution thereof
to him, is of the value of four thousand eight hundred dollars, and is hereby so
fixed; and the term “court claimants,” as herein used, shall include all persons
whose names were embraced in what purported to be judgments of the United
States court in Indian Territory, admitting them to Choctaw or Chickasaw
citizenship under the said act of Congress approved June 10, 1896, and all
persons who have been born to, or become intermarried with, them and who
are claiming rights thereby.

(6) That such compensation shall be due and payable by the Treasurer of the
United States, at the Treasury, out of any funds of the Choctaws and Chickasaws
in the hands of the Government, in proportion of three-fourths out of Choctaw
and one-fourth out of Chickasaw funds, whenever the roll of those persons
entitled to allotment and distribution of tribal property shall become final.

Two years thereafter it was submitted to the Secretary for approval, as required
by section 2103 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (S. Doc. 387, 60th
Cong., 1st sess., p. 2), when the Secretary declined to approve it, but offered to
approve it in a modified form, which offer was declined by the attorneys, as will
more particularly appear from the Secretary’s report (id., p. 2).

■At the time this contract was entered into Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish were *
the paid attorneys of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, receiving an annual
salary of $10,000, and $5,000 per annum for expenses. As attorney’s for the
nations it was their duty to protect the rights of all citizens of the nations, and
the persons agamst whom this contract was leveled were citizens of the Choctaw
and Chickasaw nations, adjudged so by the United States district court in the
Indian Territory, and the judgments of that court affirmed by the Supreme Court
of the United States in Stephens v. The Cherokee Nation (174 U. S., 476). Thus
these attorneys occupied the dual position of representing all the citizens of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, including the court-judgment citizens, under
their general contract for their annual employment, while under their special
contract they were employed to defeat the rights of a part of their own clients,
the court-judgment citizens.

Members of this firm of attorneys came to Washington, and represented that *
the judgments in the United States courts were obtained by fraud, and there
was included a provision in the act of Julv 1, 1902 (sees. 31,32, and 33,32 Stat.,
646, 647, and 648), creating a legislative court to be known as the “Choctaw-
Chickasaw citizenship court,” to be composed of three members. The hearings
before the committee which inserted this provision were not recorded, and it
was neither the agreement as negotiated nor as it passed the House.

By section 31 of this act the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, acting jointly
or separately, were authorized to, within ninety days after the approval of the
act, file a bill in equity in said legislative court citing 10 representative persons,
admitted to citizenship by the United States district court, to appear and show
cause why the judgments of the United States district court , which had been
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Stephens v. Cherokee
Nation (174 U. S., 476), should not be annulled. Two questions were to be
presented in the test cases and were to be determined by the court, i. e.:

1. Did the United States courts in the Indian Territory, acting under the act
of Congress approved June 10, 1896, err in admitting persons to citizenship
or to enrollment as such citizens in the Choctaw or Chickasaw nations,
respectively, without notice of the proceedings in such courts being given
to each of said nations?

2. Did the United States district courts err in trying said cases, on appeal
from the Dawes Commission, de novo, or should said courts have been
confined to a review of the action of the commission upon the papers
and evidence submitted to said court by said commission?

Both of these questions had been determined by the United States Supreme
Court in the case of Stephens v. The Cherokee Nation. The act then
provided:

In the event said citizenship judgments or decisions are annulled or vacated
in the test suit hereinbefore authorized, because of either or both of the
irregularities claimed and insisted upon by said nations as aforesaid, then
the files, papers, and proceedings in any citizenship case in which the
judgment or decision is so annulled or vacated shall, upon written application
therefor made within ninety days thereafter by any party thereto who is thus
deprived of a favorable judgment upon his claimed citizenship, be transferred
and certified to said citizenship court by the court having custody and control
of such files, papers, and proceedings; aud upon the filing in such citizenship
court of the files, papers, and proceedings in any such citizenship case,
accompanied by due proof that notice in writing of the transfer and certification
thereof has been given to the chief executive officer of each of said nations,
said citizenship case shall be docketed in said citizenship court and such further
proceedings shall be had therein in that court as ought to have been had in the
court to which the same was taken on appeal from the Commission to the Five
Civilized Tribes and as if no judgment or decision had been rendered therein.
The test case, with the 10 representative defendants, was submitted and a
decision rendered vacating and annulling all the judgments secured in the
United States district court. The great majority of the cases in which the
judgments were thus annulled were brought into this legislative court for
decision. At the December term, 1904, the court rendered final decisions
adjudging 156 persons entitled to citizenship (S. Doc. 372, 60th
Cong., 1st sess., p. 63) and denying 3,678 (id., 64). An examination of
these judgments will disclose:

■First. That the judgments were padded, the names of many persons being =
duplicated in order to swell the grand total of rejected claimants. The fee
paid was to be on the basis of the number of claimants rejected.==

Second. That favorable judgments were rendered in 63 cases, and that
in 54 of the 63 cases the rights of only one claimant were involved.
The Secretary of the Interior having refused to approve the contract of =
Mansfield, McMurray & Cornish, a provision was inserted in the Indian =
appropriation bill approved March 3, 1903 (32 Stat., 995-996), authorizing
the citizenship court to award reasonable compensation to said firm of
attorneys, and for the payment of the award out of the trust funds of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians. Pursuant to said authorization, the
citizenship court awarded said firm of attorneys a fee of $750,000, =
which was paid out of the trust funds of the Indians.

While the judgments obtained in the United States courts in Choctaw and
Chickasaw cases were thus reversed and annulled by the citizenship court,
the judgments rendered by the United States court in all Cherokee, Creek,
and Seminole cases remain intact, and the claimants are to-day in the
peaceable possession of their property under said judgments.
Among the claimants thus denied by the citizenship court were recognized
citizens by blood of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes whose names
appeared on the various tribal rolls of said nations. Under the act of
June 10, 1896, neither the commission, the United States courts, nor the
citizenship court had any jurisdiction over such a case. The jurisdiction
of all these tribunals was confined to a determination of the rights of
claimants whose names were not on the tribal rolls. By that act the
tribal rolls were confirmed. Thus, of the cases affecting the rights of
more than 2,000 of the 3,678 persons denied by the citizenship court,
that court had no jurisdiction of their cases whatsoever. This is made
plain in the decision of the Assistant Attorney-General in the case of
Lou la West and others, applicants for enrollment as citizens of the
Choctaw Nation (Laws Affecting the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893-1906,
p. 155). In this case the names of the petitioners appeared on the tribal
rolls. The commission enrolled them and the finding of the commission
was affirmed by the United States district court. The citizenship court
set aside the judgments rendered in this case. Subsequently the
Attorney-General held that as the claimants’ names appeared on the
tribal rolls and those rolls were confirmed by the act of June 10, 1896,
neither the commission, the United States district court, nor the
citizenship court had any jurisdiction to deny them enrollment, that
her name was by operation of law placed on the rolls, and that no
tribunal under said act had any authority to strike it off.
The Attorney-General (id., 156) says:

I deem the matter too clear to admit of debate that if the commission
had no power to purge the rolls and Mrs. West was on a tribal roll,
all the power of the commission in 1856 was the ministerial duty to
inscribe her name on the roll to be prepared. Had the commission
denied her right, its action was a mere nullity. Any appeal taken from
their action was a mere nullity. Any judgment of the United States
court upon such appeal other than to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction
was a mere nullity. Any action of the citizenship court upon it was a
mere nullity. That court had no jurisdiction and should have dismissed
it upon her motion.

Thus it clearly appears that all those persons whose names appeared on *
the tribal roll and were denied by the citizenship court were unlawfully
denied. The great majority of the remaining cases were meritorious, and
the claimants ought not to have been denied.

Act of June 7, 1897 (30 Stat, 495).—As there had been various tribal
rolls prepared from year to year by different tribal officials, the question
arose as to what tribal rolls were confirmed by the act of June 10, 1896.
For the purpose of designating the confirmed tribal rolls this act provided:
That said commission shall continue to exercise all authority heretofore
conferred on it by law to negotiate with the Five Tribes, and any agreement
made by it with any one of said tribes, when ratified, shall operate to
suspend any provisions of this act if in conflict therewith as to said nation:
Provided, That the words “rolls of citizenship,” as used in the act of June
tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, making appropriations for current
and contingent expenses of the Indian Department and fulfilling treaty
stipulations with various Indian tribes for the fiscal year ending June
thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven, shall be construed to mean
the last authenticated rolls of each tribe which have been approved by
the council of the nation, and the descendants of those appearing on
such rolls, and such additional names and their descendants as have
been subsequently added, either by the council of such nation, the duly
authorized courts thereof, or the commission under the act of June tenth,
eighteen hundred and ninety-six. And all other names appearing
upon such rolls shall be open to investigation by such commission for a
period of six months after the passage of this act . And any name appearing
on such rolls and not confirmed by the act of June tenth, eighteen hundred
and ninety-six, as herein construed, may be stricken therefrom by such
commission where the party affected shall have ten days’ previous notice
that said commission will investigate and determine the right of such party
to remain upon such roll as a citizen of such nation: Provided, also, That
anyone whose name shall be stricken from the roll by such commission
shall have the right of appeal, as provided in the act of June tenth, eighteen
hundred and ninety-six.

By this act the commission was given limited authority to purge the rolls,
and the name of every descendant of any person whose name was rightfully
upon the tribal rolls was by operation of this law placed on the roll on
which the name of his ancestor appeared. In the case of Mary Elizabeth
Martin (Laws Affecting the Five Civilized Tribes, 1893-1906, p. 160), the
Assistant Attorney-General says:

By this act (June 7, 1897) descendants of persons on the roll were defined
and regarded as on the roll whereon their parents were found, whether
themselves actually on such rolls or not and though born after the roll
was made.

Act of June 28,1898, section 21 (30 Stat, 495, 502-504).—The Commission
to the Five Civilized Tribes and the Secretary having been unable to prepare
under the acts of June 10, 1896, and June 7, 1897, correct rolls of the Five
Civilized Tribes, the act of June 28, 1898, was passed. This was the most
comprehensive piece of legislation ever enacted relating to the preparation
of citizenship and freedmen rolls, and had it remained unchanged, and had
the commission and the Secretary properly administered this law, equal
justice would have been meted out to every claimant to citizenship in the
Choctaw and Chickasaw nations. Section 21, so far as it related to the
enrollment of Choctaw and Chickasaw citizens and freedmen, was as
follows:

Sec. 21. That in making rolls of citizenship of the several tribes, as required
by law, * * *

Said commission is authorized and directed to make correct rolls of the
citizens by blood of all the other tribes, eliminating from the tribal rolls
such names as may have been placed thereon by fraud or without authority
of law, enrolling such only as may have lawful right thereto, and their
descendants born since such rolls were made, with such intermarried
white persons as may be entitled to Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship
under the treaties and the laws of said tribes.

Said commission shall have authority to determine the identity of Choctaw
Indians claiming rights in the Choctaw lands under article fourteen of the
treaty between the United States and the Choctaw Nation concluded
September twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty, and to that end
they may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and perform all other acts
necessary thereto, and make report to the Secretary of the Interior.
The roll of Creek freedmen made by J. W. Dunn, under authority of the
United States, prior to March fourteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven,
is hereby confirmed, and said commission is directed to enroll all persons
now living whose names are found on said rolls, and all descendants born
since the date of said roll to persons whose names are found thereon, with
such other persons of African descent as may have been rightfully admitted
by the lawful authorities of the Creek Nation.

It shall make a correct roll of all Choctaw freedmen entitled to citizenship
under the treaties and laws of the Choctaw Nation, and all their descendants
born to them eince the date of the treaty.

It shall make a correct roll of Chickasaw freedmen entitled to any rights or
benefits under the treaty made in eighteen hundred and sixty-six between
the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes and their
descendants born to them since the date of said treaty, and forty acres
of land, including their present residences and improvements, shall be
allotted to each, to be selected, held, and used by them until their rights
under said treaty shall be determined in such manner as shall be hereafter
provided by Congress.

The several tribes may, by agreement, determine the right of persons who
for any reason may claim citizenship in two or more tribes, and to allotment
of lands and distribution of moneys belonging to each tribe; but if no such
agreement be made, then such claimant shall be entitled to such rights in
one tribe only, and may elect in which tribe he will take such right; but if
he fail or refuse to make such selection in due time he shall be enrolled in
the tribe with whom he has resided, and there be given such allotment and
distributions, and not elsewhere.

No person shall be enrolled who has not heretofore removed to and in good
faith settled in the nation in which he claims citizenship: Provided, however,
That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to militate against
any rights or privileges which the Mississippi Choctaws may have under the
laws of or the treaties with the United States.

Said commission shall make such rolls descriptive of the persons thereon,
so that they may be thereby identified, and it is authorized to take a census
of each of said tribes, or to adopt any other means by them deemed necessary
to enable them to make such rolls. They shall have access to all rolls and
records of the several tribes, and the United States court in Indian Territory
shall have jurisdiction to compel the officers of the tribal governments and
custodians of such rolls and records to deliver same to said commission,
and on their refusal or failure to do so to punish them as for contempt;
as also to require all citizens of said tribes, and persons who should be so
enrolled, to appear before said commission for enrollment, at such times
and places as may be fixed by said commission, and to enforce obedience
of all others concerned, so far as the same may be necessary, to enable said
commission to make rolls as herein required, and to punish anyone who
may in any manner or by any means obstruct said work.

The rolls so made, when approved by the Secretory of the Interior, shall
be final, and the persons whose names are found thereon, with their
descendants thereafter born to them, with such persons as may intermarry
according to tribal laws, shall alone constitute the several tribes which
they represent.

■The members of said commission shall, in performing all duties required =
of them by law, have authority to administer oaths, examine witnesses,
and send for persons and papers; and any person who shall willfully and
knowingly make any false affidavit or oath to any material fact or matter
before any member of said commission, or before any other officer
authorized to administer oaths, to any affidavit or other paper to be
filed or oath taken before said commission, shall be deemed guilty of
perjury, and on conviction thereof shall be punished as for such offense.*
On March 17, 1899, the Secretary of the Interior approved an opinion
prepared by Willis J. Van Devanter, then Assistant AttorneyGeneral
(now member of the United States circuit court of appeals, eighth circuit),
for the guidance of the commission and the department in the preparation
of the tribal rolls under this act. He said (S. Rept. No. 5013, pt. 2, 59th
Cong.. 2d sess., p. 1554):

The act of 1897 did not provide for new applications for citizenship. * *
Neither did the act of 1898 make any provision for new applications for
citizenship. The commission was authorized and directed to enroll the
persons indicated, and to investigate the right of all other persons whose
names were found upon any tribal roll, and to omit all such as may have
been placed there by fraud or without authority of law. They.were not
authorized to add any name not found upon some roll of the tribe,
except those of descendants of persons rightfully upon some roll, and
persons intermarried with members of the tribes, and therefore lawfully
entitled to enrollment.

The commission secured from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian
authorities at various times from 1896 to 1907 the following rolls,
which were used exclusively by the commission and the department
as a basis for the preparation of the final rolls:

Choctaw 1885 census roll: 1893 leased district payment roll;
1896 census Roll. (S. Doc. 505, 60th Cong., 1st sess., p. 7.)
Chickasaw 1878 annuity Roll; 1893 leased district payment roll;
1896 census roll.

As will appear from Senate Document 505, Sixtieth Congress, first
session, pages 4, 5, and 6, these rolls were all made by the Indian
officials who were pecuniarily interested in the division of the
property; none of them were complete rolls of the tribes; all of
them omitted entire counties of the Choctaw and Chickasaw
nations. They are the same rolls to which the Commission to
the Five Civilized Tribes referred in its annual report, dated
November 18, 1895 (S. Doe. 12, 54th Cong., 1st sess., p. 16),
wherein it said:

A tribunal was established many years ago for determining the right
of admission to this roll, and was made up at that time by judicial
decision in each case. Since that time and since the administration
of public affairs has fallen into present hands, this roll has become
a political football; and names have been stricken from it and added
to it and restored to it, without notice or rehearing or power of review,
to answer political or personal ends and with entire disregard
of rights affected thereby. Many who have long enjoyed all the
acknowledged rights of citizenship have, without warning, found
themselves thus decitizenized and deprived of political and property
rights pertaining to such citizenship.
In a report to the Secretary under date of January 24, 1903

(S. Doc. 505, 60th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 7-11), the commission advises
the Secretary that none of the rolls of the Choctaws and Chickasaws
which it then had in its possession were complete and reliable rolls,
and the commission adds:

It is a matter of general information in said nations that the rolls made *
prior to 1896 were merely census rolls, made up separately according
to counties and districts by individual census takers in such counties
and districts, and which were never brought together and consolidated
so as to form a complete roll of tribal members. * * All of the rolls so
obtained by Commissioners Bixby and McKennon were procured from
individuals who had said rolls in their possession, and the information
which the commissioners obtained at that time led to the conclusion
that it had been the practice of tribal officials charged with any duty
in connection with tribal rolls to withdraw them from the executive
offices when necessary and to retain them among their personal effects.

[Sic]

CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW ROLLS

Committee on Indian Affairs House of Representatives
HR- 19279 Hr- 19552 HR and HR 22830
Sixty Second Congress

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Washington D.C. Printing Office 1910-
[H. R. 19279, Sixty-first Congress, second session.]
-————————
Let me Clarify;

Making Dawes Com., “Application” as an MCR-14th Article Claimant- Unless you were a Choctaw Indian, It was against National/ Federal Laws. Perjury, Punishable by Federal Laws-

If you are a Descendant of an MCR-14th Article Claimant- And need assistance in finding resolution as to your MCR-14th Article Degree of Mississippi Choctaw Blood Lineage, Under Act of June 10, 1898 as Mississippi Choctaw not to be misconstrued as having any bearing whatsoever as to your Feb 8, 1887 Choctaw Nation[Oklahoma] CDIB- By Blood Cards- Staying within Proper Protocall with Choctaw Nation[S] Only Applicable to your MCR-14th Article Claimant Enrollment Cards. A CDIB Card Applicable to a Federally Recognized Choctaw Tribe Providing proof of Mississippi Choctaw Lineage by Blood- E-mail your MCR- 14th Article Requests and concerns to Aforesaid Sonya Deaton Choctaw Nation Enrollee- LeoPergson@Aol.Com

attached: