Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

[Senate document 420, 57th Congress, 1st Session]


Go to: Loyal Creek Claims. ... 1863 Refugee Census

CLAIMS OF THE LOYAL CREEKS

Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, presented the following

MEMORIALS OF S. W. PEEL and ISPARHECHER, EX-CHIEF MUSK0GEE (CREEK) NATION,
PRESENTING THE CLAIMS OF THE LOYAL CREEKS.


June 23, 1902. - Referred to the Committee on Indian affairs and ordered to be printed.

At the beginning of the Civil War the Indians of the Indian Territory were divided in their sentiments of allegiance. A large majority favored the Confederacy. Those who stood by the Union lost much of their property, and many of them lost their lives by reason of their loyalty.

At the close of the war it was ascertained that of the loyal Choctaws and Chickasaws who thus lost property there were 212; of the loyal Seminoles there were 340; of the loyal Creeks 1,523.

These loyal Indians were driven from their homes to find shelter within the Union lines. The exodus, especially of the Creeks, was a running fight with their brethren who sympathized with the Confederacy, who followed and assaulted them as they journeyed toward Kansas resulting in many being killed and wounded. Their pathway was strewn with their unburied dead, and marked by their bloody footsteps in the snow.

These loyal Indians furnished about two regiments of soldiers for the Union army. Most of these were Creeks. One regiment, made up wholly of Creeks and a few Seminoles, took part in 21 engagements. One of their number, speaking of the casualties of this regiment, says: "Our dead were as milestones to mark our way through the country."

When the war was over all the so called "civilized tribes" were called to meet commissioners of the United States looking to treaties of reconstruction. The meeting was held at Fort Smith from September 8 to 21, 1865. Delegates from all the tribes and factions were present. The Commission consisted of D. N. Cooley, then Commissioner of Indian affairs; Elijah Sells, superintendent of southern superintendency; Thomas Wister, a leading member of the Society of Friends; Brig. Gen. W. S. Harney, United States army, and Col. Eli Parker, a New York Indian, and then of General Grant's staff.

During the extended negotiations, running through twelve full days, the statement was made, and repeated again and again, to all the Indians that the Government intended, above all other things, specially care for these Indians who had remained loyal and thereby suffered losses.

Commissioner Cooley says that:

Immediately upon the opening of proceedings the tribes were informed generally of the object for which the Commission had come to them; that they for the most part, as tribes, had, by violating their treaties - by making treaties with the so-called Confederate States - forfeited all rights under them and must be considered as at the mercy of the Government; but that there was every disposition to treat them leniently, and above all a determination to recognize in a signal manner the loyalty of those who had fought upon the side of the Government and endured great sufferings on its behalf.

Again Commissioner Cooley says:

Most of these tribes had advanced far in civilization, and their country was well provided with good schools and academies. Many of their leading men are to-day thoroughly educated men, of statesmen like views, fully able to express those views in our language, in a manner which can be excelled in few of our deliberative assemblies. Their people were rich in real and personal property, living in the enjoyment of everything needed for their comfort; and considerable wealth had accumulated in the hands of some of them - the slave holders - so that they lived in a style of luxury to which our thriving Northern villages are most unaccustomed. Their crops were abundant, but their chief element of prosperity was stock raising, and vast herds of cattle were in their hands as a means of wealth. (p. 37) Of course, the loyal portions of all of these tribes have suffered most; for they became refugees from their homes, leaving them in the hands of their enemies, and everything that they left was destroyed. A large number of the loyal Indians of all the tribes entered into the service of the United States, and many of them sealed their fidelity with their lifeblood, while many others are maimed for life. Now that the war is over, the survivors of these loyal bands claim the sympathy and aid of the Government (p. 37).

Referring especially to the Creeks, he says:

The Creeks were nearly divided in sentiment at the opening of the war, about 6,500 having gone with the rebellion, while the remainder, under the lead of the brave old chief Opothleyoholo, resisted all temptations of the rebel agents and of leading men, like John Ross, among the Indians, and fought their way out of the country northward, in the winter, tracked by their bloody feet upon the frozen ground. They lost everything - houses, homes, stock, everything that they possessed. Many joined the United States army.

The chairman of the Commission, during the second day of the negotiations, addressing the assembled delegates from the various tribes, again said:

As we said yesterday we say again, that in any event those who have always been loyal, although their nation may have gone over to the enemy, will be liberally provided for and dealt with.

The loyal parties, especially the loyal Creeks, understood what these promises meant, and on the ninth day the loyal Creek delegation formally filed, in writing, their assent to the proposals of the Commission, the first sentence reading as follows:

We, the delegates of the Creek Nation to this council, have had many talks with you while in attendance on sessions with us, and know the policy of the Government toward us, the loyal Creeks.

The result of these extended negotiations in 1865 was a preliminary treaty of peace in which these Indians acknowledged the jurisdiction of the United States over them in all things, and the Government gave them assurances of protection. The parties signed this agreement with the understanding that each tribe should subsequently send to Washington delegates authorized to negotiate a formal treaty "for the settlement of all questions of difference arising from the war." In pursuance of this understanding, delegations from each appeared in Washington in January, 1866. Three of the United States commissioners who were at Fort Smith carried on the negotiations in Washington, namely, Commissioner Cooley, Superintendent Sells, and Colonel Parker.

Commissioner Cooley, in his report (1866, p.8), says in negotiating the Washington treaties four principal points came up for settlement, the third point being "a fair compensation for losses of property occasioned to those who remained loyal by the disloyal party."

In all the long negotiations at Fort Smith in 1865, as it is fully set out in the report of the Commissioner of Indian affairs for that year (pp. 296-312), there is no suggestion or intimation that, the losses of the loyal Indians should be paid "by the disloyal party." It is first heard of in January, 1866. And it will be seen by the provisions of the treaties given below that the disloyal parties were not eventually required to pay the whole of such losses. It was provided that they should be paid from tribal funds in the cases of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and from the proceeds of sales of ceded lands in the cases of the Seminoles and Creeks. In other words, the funds of the whole tribe were used, and thus the loyal Indians contributed toward paying their own claims.

TREATY PROVISIONS

CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW TREATY


Here is the provision in the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty:

ARTICLE XLIX. And it is further agreed that a commission, to consist of a person or persons to be appointed by the President of the United States, shall be appointed immediately on the ratification of this treaty, who shall take into consideration and determine the claim of such Choctaws and Chickasaws as allege that they have been driven during the late rebellion from their homes in the Choctaw (and Chickasaw) relations on account of their adhesion to the United States, for damages, with power to make such award as may be consistent with equity and good conscience, taking into view all circumstances, whose report, when ratified by the Secretary of the Interior shall br final and authorize the payment of the amounts from any moneys of said nation in the hands of the Unites States as the said commission may award. (14 Stat. L, 780)

SEMINOLE TREATY


In the Seminole treaty, which is found in 14 Stat. L., 755, the third article provides for the cession of the whole reserve (2,169,080 acres) to the United States at the rate of 15 cents per acre, giving a fund of $325,362. Then in the same article there is ceded to the Seminoles 200,000 acres which the Government had just secured from the Creeks, and for which they had agreed to pay 30 cents an acre, but which tract is charged up to the Seminoles at 50 cents an acre, or an aggregate of $100,000. This amount been deducted from the price of the Seminole reserve leaves a balance due the tribe of $225,362. This last amount, by said third article, is then parceled out for the purchase of stock, for agricultural implements, for a permanent school fund, etc., until there are only $50,000 left. The article then concludes:

The balance, fifty thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary to pay the losses ascertained and awarded as hereinafter provided, shall be paid when said awards shall have been duly made and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. And in case said fifty thousand dollars shall be insufficient to pay all said awards, it shall be distributed pro rata to those when claims are so allowed; and until said awards shall be thus paid, the United States agree to pay to said Indians, in such manner and for such purpose as the Secretary of the Interior may direct, interest at the rate of five per centum per annum from the date of the ratification of this treaty.

Following this comes Article IV, which provides the machinery for ascertaining the losses of the loyal Seminoles, and is as follows:

ARTICLE IV. - To reimburse such members of the Seminole Nation as shall be duly adjudged to have remained loyal and faithful to their treaty relations to the United States, during the recent rebellion of the so-called Confederate states, for the losses actually sutured by them thereby, after the ratification of this treaty, or so soon thereafter as the Secretary of the Interior shall direct, he shall appoint a board of commissioners, not to exceed three in number, who shall proceed to the Seminole country and investigate and determine said losses. Previous to said investigation the agent of the Seminole Nation shall prepare a census or enumeration of said tribe and make a roll of all Seminoles who did in no manner aid or abet the enemies of the Government, but remained loyal during said rebellion; and no award shall he made by said commissioners for such losses unless the name of the claimant appear on said roll, and no compensation shall be allowed any person for such losses whose name does not appear on said roll, unless said claimant within six months from the date of the completion of said roll, furnishes proof satisfactory to said board, or to the Commissioner of Indian affairs, that he has at all times remained loyal to the United States according to his treaty obligations. All evidence touching said claims shall be taken by said commissioners, or any of them, under oath, and their awards made, together with the evidence, shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for his approval, and that of the Secretary of the Interior. Said commissioners shall be paid by the United States such compensation as the Secretary of the Interior may direct. The provisions of this article shall extend to and embrace the claims for losses sustained by loyal members of said tribe, irrespective of race or color, whether at the time of said losses the claimants shall have been in servitude or not; provided said claimants are made members of said tribe by the stipulations of this treaty. (14 Stat. L., 757.)

CREEK TREATY


Now we come to the Creek treaty, found in 14 Stat.,785. In the third article the Creeks cede to the United States the west half of their reserve - 3,250,560 acres. They are to be paid at the rate of 30 cents an acre, aggregating $975,168. All this fund is disposed of by said third article in various ways, except $100,000. As to this latter amount the article provides:

One hundred thousand dollars shall be paid to soldiers that enlisted in the Federal army and the loyal refugee Indians and freedmen who were driven from their homes by the rebel forces, to reimburse them in proportion to their respective losses.

Article IV provides how the losses of the loyal Creeks are to be ascertained, and reads as follows.

Article IV. Immediately after the ratification of this treaty the United States agree to ascertain the amount due the respective soldiers who enlisted in the Federal army, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, in proportion to their several losses, and to pay the amount awarded each, in the following manner, to wit: A census of the Creeks shall be taken by the agent of the United States for said nation, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and a roll of the names of all soldiers that enlisted in the Federal army, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, be made by him. The superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southern Superintendency and the agent of the United States for the Creek Nation shall proceed to investigate and determine from said roll the amounts due the respective refugee Indians, and shall transmit to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for his approval, and that of the Secretary of the Interior, their awards, together with the reasons therefore. In case the awards so made shall be duly approved, said awards shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of said land within one year from the ratification of this treaty, or so soon as said amount of one hundred thousand dollars can be raised from the sale of said land to other Indians. (14 Stat. L., 787.).

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE

CHOCTAW AND CHICHASAW


In the case of the Choctaws and Chickasaws, the Commission to ascertain the losses of those who were loyal was appointed promptly after the ratification of the treaty, and reported awards for 212 claimants, aggregating $233,008. (See report on file in Indian Bureau.) Congress provided for the payment of these awards by an act approved July 25, 1868 (15 Stat. L., 177). To the loyal Choctaws there was paid $109,742.08 and to the Loyal Chickasaws $150,000, making an aggregate of $259,742.08 or $26,743 more than the Commission had found due them. The whole amount was paid out of the trust funds belonging to said tribes.

SEMINOLES


In the case of the Seminoles, the Government appointed the required commission to ascertain and award the losses of the loyal party. They found 340 who were entitled and whose aggregated losses amounted to $213,888.95. This commission was appointed and made its report in 1867. (See Senate Report No. 1875, Fifty-fifth Congress, third Session.) The $50,000 which was provided to be paid to the loyal Seminoles by the terms of article 3 of their treaty of 1866 was appropriated for and paid from the Treasury of the United States. (See 14 Stat. L., 319) The balance of their losses were provided for in the Indian appropriation bill approved May 3l, 1900. (31 Stat. L., 240) The Senate, acting as a court of arbitration, found that the commission had allowed "the face value of every claim presented." In view of this fact, the amount awarded was scaled down 45 per cent, the $50,000 theretofore paid was deducted, and on the balance was computed 5 per cent interest "from the l6th day of August, 1866, to March 1, 1899," and $186,000 was duly paid from the United States Treasury. Thus the total payment to the loyal Seminoles for their losses during the war has been made from the Government funds.

CREEKS


While the commissioners to ascertain the losses of the loyal Choctaws, and the commissioners to ascertain the losses of the loyal Seminoles, were appointed and made their respective reports in 1867 (the next year after the treaties were ratified), yet the commissioners to ascertain the losses of the loyal Creeks were not appointed until July 21, 1869 and made no report until February 14, 1870. These commissioners were Brig. Gen. W. B. Hazen and Capt. F. A. Field, both officers of the Regular army. The census disclosed that while more than 6,000 of the loyal Creeks followed brave old Opothleyoholo from their reservation into Kansas, only 3,611 returned. An awful mortality! These filed claims with the commissioners aggregating $5,090,808.50. The commissioners allowed $1,836,830.41. A cut of about 62 per cent.

The awards were approved by the Commissioner of Indian affairs and a qualified approval affixed by the Secretary of the Interior. Subsequently there was paid out to the claimants on these awards the sum of $100,000 from funds belonging to the Creek tribe. (16 Stat. L. 341) The Indians refused to accept any portion of this money until assured by the special agent, J. A. Williamson, that it was simply an advance payment and that the whole of the awards should be soon paid.

This was in 1870. From that date, thirty-two years, the loyal Creeks have urged the payment of these claims incessantly. Bill after bill been introduced and argued before the Indian committees of the has two Houses.

In the twenty-sixth section of the act to ratify the Creek agreement, approved March 1, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 869), it was finally provided that this "loyal Creek claim" with some other claims of the tribe, should be submitted to the Senate for determination within two years from the final ratification of said agreement.

The second clause of said section 26 reads as follows:

Of these claims the "loyal Creek claim" for what they suffered because of their loyalty to the United States Government during the civil war, long delayed, is so urgent in its character that the parties to this agreement express the hope that it may receive consideration and be determined at the earliest practicable moment.

Early in the present session a memorial, signed by the venerable Isparhecher, for himself as a loyal Creek claimant and as attorney in fact for the others, asking the Senate to take action under the provisions of said section 26, was introduced by Senator James K. Jones and was duly referred to the Committee on Indian affairs. Thus the case is before the Senate as a board of arbitration in pursuance of a law of Congress. and as "the parties to the agreement" mentioned in the 1901 act were the Indians and the United States, the Senate is also under the legal obligation to give the case equitable consideration and determine it "at the earliest practicable moment."

HAVE THE AWARDS BEEN PAID?


It is now urged that the Creeks have already been paid the full amount provided for in the treaty; that whatever the commissioners might find the losses to be they should not be paid to exceed $100,000.

A proper construction of article 4 will not limit the amount to be paid to $100,000. By an application of the simple rules of grammatical analysis it will be seen that the article declares that the amounts due these Indians are to be ascertained by the United States, and the amounts thus awarded are to be paid. The words of the first sentence to the semicolon are these:

Immediately after the ratification of this treaty the United States agree to ascertain the amount due the respective soldiers who enlisted in the Federal army, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, in proportion to their several losses, and to pay the amounts awarded each in the following manner.

This statement is plainly and properly subject to the following paraphrase:

The United States agrees to ascertain and award the amounts due the several Indians in the following manner, and when so ascertained such awards shall be paid.

The words "in the following manner" are not limitations upon the amounts to be awarded and paid. They simply relate back to the provision for ascertaining the amounts due. Such amounts shall be ascertained "in the following manner:" That is, a census is to be taken and a roll call made of the soldiers, refugees, and freedmen, and a Commission is provided for, whose duty it will be to "investigate and determine" the amounts due the respective refugee Indians, etc. The two central things clearly apparent in a proper reading of the article are (1) that the losses which these loyalists have borne shall be ascertained by the machinery set up, and (2) that when ascertained they shall be paid.

It is neither grammatical, nor logical, nor common sense to construe the phrase "in the following manner" as limiting the phrase "and to pay the amount awarded each".

This construction is not avoided by the last sentence in the article reading as follows:

In case the awards so made shall be duly approved, said awards shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of said lands within one year from the ratification of this treaty, or so soon as said amount of one hundred thousand dollars can be raised from the sale of said land to other Indians.

In the light of that portion of the article which precedes this last sentence, the only proper meaning to give it is that it fixes the fund from which the awards shall be paid, and the time when they shall be paid. They are to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the lands, and as soon as $100,000 can be realized from such sales. If the proceeds of the sale of, the lands made within a year are insufficient to pay the awards, then, and in that event, they are to be paid so soon as the amount of $100,000 can be raised from such sales.

That the $100,000 was not intended to cover all losses which might be found and awarded by the Commission is apparent from examining the Seminole treaty. The facts on which the two treaties were based were exactly alike. The Creeks and Seminoles were neighbors and related. In both tribes there was a division of sentiments at the beginning of the war. There was a loyal party in each, the only difference being that there was more Union sentiment among the Creeks. The loyalists in both cases lost their property. Both parties attended the negotiations at Fort Smith and heard and accepted the promises made to them by the Cooley Commission. Three of this same Commission negotiated the Washington treaties of 1866. They knew what they had promised the loyal Indians the previous winter. If they were honest men, they intended as nearly as possible to make the promises good. In the Seminole treaty the language is clear; there is no ambiguity, no chance for double construction. The United States promised in straight forward language to ascertain the losses of the loyal party and to pay them whatever was awarded.

Fifty thousand dollars was set aside (just as the $100,000 was in the Creek treaty) with which to make payments so far as that amount would go. If it fell short the balance was to be paid with interest. The $50,000 paid the Seminoles 25 per cent of their awards; the $100,000 paid the Creeks 5 per cent of theirs.

Now, can it enter the mind of any man that Cooley, and Sells, and Colonel Parker, having just completed such a treaty with the Seminoles, a treaty in keeping with the promises which they had made but a few months before immediately set about the construction of a treaty with the Creeks that should be less just? If these commissioners on the part of the United States intended to pay the loyal Seminoles in full, with interest on delayed payments, and leave the loyal Creeks to take 5 per cent or whatever per cent the $100,000 would pay on their awards without interest then they disgraced and debauched their offices, and Congress should remedy the wrong. But it is not at all necessary to make such an assumption as to the commissioners, or such a construction of the Creek treaty.

Assuming, as we certainly do, that the commissioners were honest in drawing both treaties and meant to do equal justice to both parties we have the Seminole treaty as the index to the intentions of both the commissioners and the Indians. With these two treaties in hand, and keeping in mind the rule of the Supreme Court that "Indian treaties should be construed as understood by this unlettered people", and the other rule of construction laid down in Hanenstein v. Lynham (100 U.S., 483 L. ed. 25, 628), in which the court said that where a treaty admits of two constructions, one restrictive of the rights that may be claimed under it and the other liberal, the latter is to be preferred; keeping these two rules in mind, there would seem to be but one conclusion possible in disposing of the question before the Senate.

THE MORAL OBLIGTION


But quite aside from any legal aspects of the matter there is a moral obligation involved which we are sure the Senate must consider. The claimants are not simply Indians - wards of the nation - begging aid. They were volunteer soldiers who sacrificed their property, many of them their lives, to preserve the Union. The treatment they have received from the hands of the Government is in most striking contrast with that accorded to other soldiers.

And then the broken and disregarded promises made them should now tell in favor of an early and liberal settlement.

1. The liberal promises of 1865 were first violated in 1866, when the entire western half of the reservation was forced from the tribe at 30 cents an acre as a punishment to the disloyal element, although the loyalists - being about one-half of the whole tribe - of course had to share the hardship equally with the others.

2. The promised liberality was again disregarded when the commissioners to determine the losses tore up the written statements the Indians brought them and insisted on proofs being made by witnesses testifying in their presence. This was a hardship and a wrong. The loyal party, or those left of them, were just returning from Kansas to their homes on the reserve. They were scattered over a vast territory, some in Kansas, some on the way, and others had just reached the desolated places, once their homes. Many witnesses were dead, and all the living were wholly impoverished. How under these circumstances could the claimants bring before the commissioners the living witnesses of their losses? Some gave up the attempt to prove their claims, while others were only able to prove a few items of their actual losses. They should have been aided to get their proofs.

3. Again, far from the spirit of the liberal promises made at Fort Smith, the commissioners cut the claims, as presented, to about 38 per cent of the original amount; while the commissioners to the other tribes allowed the claims presented in full.

4. There was also paid on the awards, after they were tardily announced, but 5 cents on the dollar, while the loyal Choctaws and Chickasaws were paid in full, and the Seminoles were paid 25 cents on the dollar.

5. The whole tribe was forced to divide their lands and funds with their former slaves, another punishment for disloyalty which was equally imposed on the loyal.

THE DISLOYAL FARED BETTER THAN THE LOYAL


Thus it is true that the Creeks who went with the Confederate government, and who joined and fought with the Confederate army, have fared better than those who braved every thing for the Union cause. Neither their loss of property nor the loss of life among the helpless ones was nearly so great with the disloyal as with the loyal party.

The loyal Creek claimants are beginning to feel that in a way they have been put off, and are being put off because there are so many of them; they are not paid because their ascertained losses are so great; that if, like the Choctaws and Chickasaws, their tribe had all joined the Confederacy, except a very few, they, the loyal ones, would have fared better.

HOW THE INDIANS UNDERSTOOD IT


To show how the Indians themselves understood the terms of the treaty, we add as exhibits: (1) The last memorial of ex-Chief Isparhecher who is a full-blood Creek, and himself a claimant; (2) the affidavit of David M. Hodge, who was the official interpreter of the Creek Nation, appointed by the United States Indian agent at the time the treaty of 1866 was submitted to the Indians for ratification; (3) an affidavit of Isparhecher; (4) an affidavit of Con-chartimicco, another full-blood Creek, who says he knows the claimants, having "mixed with them a great deal;" (5) an affidavit of Gen. Pleasant Porter, the present chief of the nation, and not of the loyal party; (6) an affidavit of George Alexander, another "disloyal" Creek; (7) of L. C. Perryman, an intelligent and educated man, who has been judge of the Coweta district, and member of the house of warriors; and (8) of Thomas Perryman, a brother of the latter, and a minister of the gospel among his people.

All these witnesses, who speak generally for the whole Creek Nation, as well as for themselves are intelligent and honest men. Two of them, the present capable chief and Mr. Alexander, were in the Confederate army, and have no material interest in the claims.

Add to this sworn testimony the fact that when General Williamson as the disbursing agent of the United States, undertook to pay these claimants, in 1870, the $100,000 already mentioned, the Indians refused to take any portion of it until assured by him that it was only a payment on account and the balance of the awards should be paid in full at an early date and there can be no question as to how the Indians understood the treaty. They understood and believed that they were to be paid by the United States just as the Seminoles have been paid in full for all their losses.

RES ADJUDICATA


In another paper we have raised the question that the awards rendered by the commission of our own appointment, in pursuance of the treaty provisions would, in a court, be held as final adjudications binding upon the Government. To this point, which we believe lawyers will consider well taken, we cited Wright v. Tebbitts (1 Otto, 252). But we realize that we now appeal to the lawmaking power, and not to the courts, and believe that the sense of obligation arising on the contract made with the claimants, and the decisions which Congress has already made in similar cases (Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles), will furnish abundance of reason for favorable action on the petition of these long-waiting and long-suffering Indians. There is also added as an exhibit, a copy of the awards made by General Hazen and Captain Field. The simple history of these claims, culminating in these findings, is the strongest argument we can make for their allowance.

CONCLUSION


Considering, then, the large amount paid the loyal Choctaws in proportion to their numbers, and the promptness with which their losses were ascertained and adjusted, and the liberal provision made the Seminoles, it seems that the Creeks should now have the full amount set out in the awards (after deducting the amount of $100,000 already paid), and that to this amount should be added interest at the same rate as that allowed the Seminoles.

The account would then stand:

Amount awarded, less $100,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,736,830.40
Interest at 5 per cent from January 1, l866, to January 1, 1902, a term
of thirty-six years --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $3,126,294.00
Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $4,863,124.40

S. W. PEEL,
Attorney for Claimants

J. H. McGowan, Of Counsel


EXHIBIT I

Memorial of Isparhecher


To the Senate of the United States of America:

Your petitioner, Isparhecher, ex-chief of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians, a loyal Creek, who lost property during the civil war, on behalf of himself, as a loyal Creek claimant and as attorney in fact for all the other loyal Creek claimants, most respectfully petitions your honorable body to proceed as provided in section 26 of an act entitled "An act to ratify and confirm an agreement with the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians, and for other purposes," approved March 1, 1901, as soon as practicable to investigate the claims of the loyal Creek Indians for property lost by them in the war of the rebellion, and determine the amount due said claimants for said losses; also to determine the amount due the Muskogee (Creek) Nation as a reimbursement for money paid on said claims out of Creek money.

Your petitioner further represents that when the civil war between the States broke out the Creek people were living peaceably and quietly on their reservation in the Indian Territory, situate upon the border of the hostile States, feeling well protected under treaties with the United States; that they had a civil government well organized for their local protection of life, liberty , and property; the Creek people had long since adopted the habits and customs of civilized life, and by their energy and industry had accumulated a large amount of property, consisting of farm improvements, farm implements, horses, mules, cattle, sheep, hogs, etc. Your petitioner further represents that the Creek people, like others living on the border, were divided in sentiment on the civil war, then raging between the North and South. Many cast their fortunes with the South, while others remained loyal to their treaty stipulations and to the Government of the United States. Many enlisted as soldiers in the Union army, while others became refugees. In consequence of their loyalty they were compelled to abandon their homes and property and flee to the Union cause for protection. While absent serving as United States soldiers many of their homes were despoiled, their live stock captured and driven off by the enemy, none of which was ever restored to them.

Your petitioner further represents that after the war closed a new treaty was made between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians known as the treaty of 1866 (see page 785, Stat., vol. 14), in the fourth article of which treaty it was agreed that all the loyal Creek Indians who enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugees, freedmen, should be paid the amount awarded each for their losses sustained during the war. It being further provided that the superintendent of Indian affairs for the southern Superintendency, and the agent of the Creek Nation, one of whom was F. A. Fields, captain in the United States army, the other Brevet Maj. Gen. B. F. Hazin, also of the United States army, were to investigate and examine all claims for property so lost during said war by said loyal Creeks, etc., and report their findings to the honorable Commissioner of Indian affairs and the honorable Secretary of the Interior.

Your petitioner further represents that said officers did most thoroughly examine the claims presented to them for lost property; examined many witnesses as to the loyalty of the claimants, the character and value of the property lost, and after full examination of many witnesses face to face, when the subject-matter was fresh, allowed only about 36 per cent of each claim, and for that amount by them awarded reported the same to the honorable Commissioner and Secretary as provided in said treaty of 1866.

Your petitioner further represents that the aggregate of said awards, after the heavy scaling, amount to over $1,800,000. That afterwards the United States caused to be paid on said awards the sum of $100,000, which amount was paid pro rata on said awards, and the remainder, though more than thirty years have passed, still remains wholly unpaid. The $100,000 paid as aforesaid was charged to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, and was therefore paid with Creek money.

Your petitioner further represents that on the 8th day of March, 1900, at the city of Washington, D. C., an agreement was concluded between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation or tribe of Indians, of which the following is apart:

CLAIMS


" 26. all claims of whatsoever nature, including the 'Loyal Creek claim' under article four of the treaty of eighteen hundred and sixty-six and the 'Self-emigration claim' under article twelve of the treaty of eighteen hundred and thirty-two, which the tribe or any individual thereof may have against the United States, or any other claim arising under the treaty of eighteen hundred and sixty-six, or any claim which the United States may have against said tribe, shall be submitted to the Senate of the United States for determination; and within two years from the ratification of this agreement the Senate shall make final determination thereof; and that in the event that any sums are awarded the said tribe, or any citizen thereof, provision shall be made for immediate payment of same. "

" Of these claims the 'Loyal Creek claim,' for what they suffered because of their loyalty to the United States Government during the Civil War, long delayed, is so urgent in its character that the parties to this agreement express the hope that it may receive consideration and be determined at the earliest practicable moment. "

Your petitioner further represents that said agreement was duly ratified by the Congress of the United States and approved on the 1st day of March, 1900, and duly and regularly ratified by the National Muskogee (Creek) council as stipulated in said agreement in May, 1901, which act of ratification was duly approved by the President of the United States according to law. The agreement is therefore now in full force.

Therefore, your petitioner, as ex-chief of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians, and one of the loyal Creek claimants, and as the attorney in fact for the others, most earnestly and respectfully prays that your honorable body proceed as soon as practicable to examine all of said claims, and to award to them the amount due, and to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation the $100,000 to reimburse said nation for the amount paid on said loyal Creek claim out of the money belonging to other people. And inasmuch as the officers and agents of the Government, after a most rigid and careful examination of each claimant of the loyal Creeks for lost property during the civil war, not only of the claimant himself, but a vast number of witnesses, examined face to face at a time when the facts were all fresh in their memory, questioning them as to the loyalty of the claimant, the kind and character of the property lost, and its market value, and after due deliberation, only allowed about 56 per cent of each claim, your petitioner hopes and prays that your award will be for the full amount awarded each claimant by said officers, with interest thereon, and to reimburse the Creek Nation the $100,000 paid on said award out of Creek money.

And your petitioner will ever pray, etc.

Isparhecher,
Ex-Chief Muskogee (Creek) Nation, for Himself as Loyal
Creek Claimant, and as Attorney in Fact for Others.

EXHIBIT 2


DAVID M. HODGE, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposes and says:

Q. What is your name?- A. My name is David M. Hodge.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am now 58 years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. At Tulsa, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, in the Indian Territory.
Q. How long have you resided and lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, in the Indian Territory?- A. All my life; was born and reared in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory, and lived with the Muskogee (Creek) people all my life.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. What offices, if any, have you held in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A. I have held and filled many offices of trust in said nation-to wit, member of the house of warriors two terms, a member of the house of kings one term, and have been delegate of the nation to Washington a number of times. Have also been United States interpreter for the Creek Nation a number of times in connection with their treaties and negotiations with us.
Q. Were you residing and living with the Muskogee (Creek) people, in said nation when the treaty between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of 1866 was made?- A. I was.
Q. After the treaty of 1866 was made was it submitted to the Muskogee (Creek) people for ratification?- A. It was.
Q. If you were acting at that time in an official capacity, please state what it was.- A. I was at the time the official United States interpreter for the Creek Nation appointed by the agent for the United States, and interpreted the treaty of 1866 to the Muskogee (Creek) people when it was submitted to them for ratification.
Q. When the treaty of 1866 was ratified by the Muskogee (Creek) people, what was their understanding, also your understanding, of the provisions of that treaty in regard to the loss of the property of the loyal Creek Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugees and freedmen, during the war of the. rebellion?- A. The Muskogee (Creek) Indians all believed and understood at the time the treaty of 1866 was ratified by them that the United States was to pay the loyal soldiers that had enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugees and freedmen out of the Treasury of the United States, for all the property they lost during the civil war. They believed then, and always since, that the losses of said soldiers loyal refugees and freedmen, were to be investigated by the officers of the United States named in the treaty of 1866, and that the awards reported by them for such losses would be paid by the United States.
Q. What, if anything, was done by the United States, or its officers, after the treaty of 1866 was made, relative to finding out the amount due the loyal Creek soldiers, refugees and freedmen, as provided for by that treaty, looking toward the adjustment and payment of the same?- A. In accordance with the fourth article of said treaty, the United States Government designated Capt. F. A. Field agent for said Muskogee (Creek) Nation, and Gen. W. B. Hazen, southern superintendency, to investigate said claim, find the names of the claimants and amount of the claims of the loyal Creek soldiers, refugees and freedmen, and I, being the official interpreter for the United States, it was my duty to interpret for the claimants to the commission, in their adjustment of these claims, and I did so act and interpret for them, and each claimant was sworn, together with other witnesses, and testimony taken, and each claim separately investigated, and during the investigation, on account of the absence of General Hazen, Lieutenant Joslin was designated by General Hazen to act for him as-his special representative in the taking of the testimony, and upon this testimony, so made and taken, Capt. F. A. Field and General Hazen afterwards made their finding, as per their report.
Q. How much, if you know, did the officers named in the treaty of 1866 report was due the loyal Muskogee (Creek) soldiers that had enlisted in the army of the United States m the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. The officers named in the treaty of 1866 reported their findings that the losses of property sustained by the Indian soldiers that enlisted in the army of the United States refugees and freedmen, aggregated something over $1,800,000. The exact amount claimed by the claimants was over $5,000,000. The exact total amount of the claim as presented, according to itemized statements of each claim was $5,090,808.50. Each claim was upon said investigation cut down from one-half to two-thirds, and sometimes more, and the sum total of the account allowed and certified by Captain Field and General Hazen as the amount due the aforesaid loyal Creek soldiers refugees, and freedmen, was $1,836,830.41, as appears by the official list of claims and the amounts awarded as due them on the rolls of the report made, which are now in the Indian Office, an official copy of which was furnished to me and is now in my possession.
Q. Has the awards made by these officers of the United States, named in said treaty, for said losses, ever been paid?- A. No. The United States, soon after the ratification of the treaty of 1866, paid pro rata on said awards nearly $100,000, or a total of $99,999.79.
Q. Were you present when any part of the $100,000 was paid?- A. Yes; I was present when most of the payments were made. I did not see all of them paid, but very near all, and attached my signature to said roll as interpreter.
Q. Did the loyal Creeks - i.e., those loyal Muskogee (Creek) soldiers who had enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion; loyal refugees and freedmen, in whose favor said awards for losses had been made, accept the $100,000 paid pro rata on their respective awards in full for their losses?- A. No; they did not. At first they refused to receive any part of the $100,000, because they understood and claimed that the United States had agreed in the treaty of 1866 to pay them for all the property losses sustained by them in the war of the rebellion after several days of consultation among themselves, and being frequently assured by the paymaster of the United States that came to make payment that the $100,000 was intended only as a part payment of their respective awards, and that Congress would appropriate and pay the balance of their awards at an early day, and upon this assurance made by the said officers of the United States, and with that belief and understanding, they accepted the pro rata payment of the $100,000, and they would not have accepted this money except for this assurance that the United States would pay the awards in full.
Q. Were you United States interpreter for the Indians at that time, and did you interpret this assurance of payment of these claims in full as made by these officers A. I was, and interpreted just what the paymaster stated, and he stated the same clearly, that this was only pro rata, and that the Government would surely pay the balance.
Q. Was there any other prominent Muskogee (Creek) Indians present when the payment of the $100,000 was commenced?- A. Yes; S. W. Perryman, Necco Hute a (or White Chief), was there also. Many others, but all are dead now.
Q. Are any of these persons named living now?- A. No; they are all dead.
Q. What do you know, if anything, about the proceedings of the officers of the United States in their investigation of the losses of property by the enlisted loyal Creek soldiers in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion - the loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. Yes; I was present when many claims for losses were examined. I acted as interpreter for the Indians. While the soldiers, refugees, and freedmen were in Kansas during the war, under advice they made out a list of their property and kept the list, and when they met the officers of the United States that were designated in the treaty of 1866 to make investigation of their losses, said officers would tear up the list of property held by the claimant and then require him to hunt up and bring personal witnesses to prove his claim. Claimants frequently were gone a week or more finding evidence. Nearly all the Indian claimants were illiterate and could not speak English. This caused much trouble and confusion and delay.

All evidence was taken under oath and with great care. And further this deponent sayeth not.

EXHIBIT 3


ISPARHECHER, being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Isparhecher.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am now about 77 years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I reside about 15 miles from Okmulgee, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Ind. T.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. How long have you lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Ind. T.?- A. Ever since the Muskogee (Creek) Indians were located on their present reservation. I don't know exactly how long. I emigrated there from Alabama when the Creeks moved there.
Q. Are you well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) Indians, their treaties, traditions, and understanding?- A. Yes; very well indeed.
Q. Have you mingled and talked with them much about their treaties, traditions, and understandings, and your tribal affairs?- A. Yes; I have talked with them a great deal and many times about our public matters and our treaty relations with the United States, and our understanding of the treaties at the time they were made and our understanding since then.
Q. Were you living in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation when the treaty was made between the United States and your people in 1866?- A. I was.
Q. Did you talk with your people at the time of the treaty and know what understanding they had as to the payment of the loyal Creek claim, by whom it was to be paid, when it was to be paid, etc.? State all about it, if you know, and also state your own understanding.- A. Yes; I talked with them a great deal. It was the subject of a great many councils among our people. The agent ( we always called him Mad agent) told us that they would pay these loyal Creek claims. The agent told us there would be an officer, or military man, that would come to us from Washington and help us make our claim, and that they would be paid, and we all understood the Government would pay us, and neither myself nor anyone I ever talked with had any other other understanding at the time we voted for the treaty nor since, among our own Indians, but what the Government would pay us. We never understood we were to pay ourselves out of our own money, or receive any less than the amount found due by the Commission provided for in the treaty. At the time of the treaty of 1866, the Government insisted that we must sell to it about one-half of our land - the western part of our reservation. They insisted of buying the land of us at 30 cents an acre, which they agreed to pay us, and they (the Government) were to have the privilege of selling that land again. It was to be the Government's land when we sold it, but we would not sell it to the Government for them to sell it to white people to settle on; but the Government said they wanted to sell it after they had bought it of us to other Indians for other Indians to settle on, and we consented to that. Then they said if the Government sold this land to other Indians and got money for that that they would pay $100,000 of that money on the loyal Creek claim, and we agreed to that; and we never agreed that they should take funds belonging to us as a Nation to pay these individual Creek claims that the Government ought to pay.
Q. Have you talked to many of your people since that treaty was made in regard to payment to these loyal Indians in your nation that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen - for property lost or destroyed during the war of the rebellion?- A. Yes; I have often talked that matter over with a great many of them; in fact, nearly all of them. We had public meetings and they seemed to look to me as one of their leaders.
Q. What was your understanding and that of your people at the time the treaty of 1866 was made and since as to how and by whom payment was to be made to those loyal Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen - for property lost by them in the war of the rebellion?- A. I myself and all the Creek people at all familiar with the treaty of l866 believed at the time the treaty was made and ever since that the United States was to pay all those loyal Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen - for property they had lost during the war of the rebellion.
Q. Has the United States ever paid for the property lost during the civil war by those loyal Creek Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States -loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. The United States, soon after the treaty of 1866 was made, paid pro rata on the awards made by the officers of the United States for property lost or destroyed of the loyal Creek soldiers that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen - $100,000. That is all that has ever been paid.
Q. Was that $100,000 paid on said awards paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or was it money that belonged to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A. The United States paid the $100,000 on said awards, but charged the entire amount to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, and deducted it from money the United States owed our nation. So the United States owes the Muskogee (Creek) Nation the $100,000 she paid on said awards, and owes the individual claimants the balance of said awards, and owes the Creek Nation the other $100,000. When they got ready to make out the claims, we understood that the United States was going to pay us in full for our losses; but at the time of the payment, or when it commenced, I was sick. They made the payment in two places, and when I got well the paymaster had not gone away, and my people told me all about how they were going to pay only 5 cents for every dollar allowed us, and that they had refused to take it. But the man sent to pay us said the Government would pay us the balance, but that $100,000 was all the money they had now, and they could divide that up and they could take that now and get the balance after awhile, and then they agreed to take it. But they said they would not have taken it as payment in full; and when I got well I went to Okmulgee and drew my money, and when I drew my money the paymaster told me I could only get 5 cents on the dollar now, but that the Government would pay the balance after awhile. At that time I did not know that the Government had taken this $100,000 out of our (the Creek) nation's money and had charged it to us, but I supposed when I drew the money that it was money paid by the Government of the United States out of its own funds and not out of ours.
Q. How much does the United States owe the loyal Creek Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States - loyal refugees and freedmen -for property lost by them during the war of the rebellion?- A. The agents or officers the United States named in the treaty of 1866 made investigation of their said losses and awarded to them the aggregate sum of something over $1,800,000 That amount is still due said loyal soldiers - refugees and freedmen - for property lost by them during the war of the rebellion, less the $100,000 paid pro rata on said awards as hereinbefore stated.
Q. What offices, if any, have you held in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A. I was duly elected and served the Muskogee (Creek) Nation as principal chief from December 5, 1895, to December 5, 1899; In all, four years continuously.
Q. What other offices, if any, have you held in said nation? A. Further this deponent sayeth not..


EXHIBIT 4


CON CHARTI MICCO, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the above-entitled cause, deposes and says:
Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Con Charti Micco.
Q. What is our age?- A. I am now __ years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I reside in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation Indian Territory.
Q. What is your post-office address?-A. It is ----, Indian Territory.
Q. What is your nationality?-A. I am a full-blood Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. How long have you resided in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory?- A. All my life.
Q. Were you living in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory, when the treaty of 1866 was made between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians?- A. Yes; and have lived there ever since.
Q. Were you well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) Indians at that time especially that part of said tribe that enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen, known and called the loyal Creeks?- A. Yes; I knew them very well; mixed with them a great deal.
Q. What was the belief and understanding of the Muskogee (Creek) Indians at and after the making of the treaty of 1866, as to the property lost during the war of the rebellion by those Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. It was the general belief and understanding of all the Muskogee (Creek) Indians that the treaty of 1866 between the United States and said nation provided that the United States was to pay for all the property lost in the war of the rebellion by these Muskogee (Creek) Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States in that war, loyal refugees and freedmen, out of its own Treasury.
Q. Has the United States ever paid said soldiers, loyal refugees and freedmen, for the property they lost during the war of the rebellion?- A. Soon after the ratification of the treaty of 1866 the United States paid $100,000 pro rata on the awards before that time made by the officers of the United States named in said treaty for their lost property in the said war of the rebellion.
Q. Does the Muskogee (Creek) Indians, and that part of them that enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen believe and claim that under the treaty of 1866 the United States still owes them the balance of the awards made them for property lost during that war?- A. They do, and have hoped and believed for over thirty years that the United States would pay at least the balance of the awards made to them for the property they lost during the war of the rebellion. Further this deponent saith not.

EXHIBIT 5


PLEASANT PORTER, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Pleasant Porter.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am --- years of age.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I reside at Muskogee, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory.
Q. How long have you resided at Muskogee, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory?- A. about --- years.
Q. How long have you lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory? A. All my life.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. Have you held any public office in said nation? If so, what office?- A. I am now the duly elected, qualified, and acting principal chief of the nation.
Q. What other offices, if any, have you held in said nation?- A. I have been national delegate to Washington a number of times, a member of the house of warriors and the house of kings, and held other public positions.
Q. Are you well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) people?- A. Very well, indeed.
Q. Have you mixed with them and that part of said Indians known there and designated in the treaty of 1866 between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians as loyal Creeks?- A. Yes; I have been rather a public man, and have mixed with and talked a great deal with both loyal Creeks and others.
Q. Have you frequently talked with that part of the Muskogee (Creek) Indians who enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion - loyal refugees and freedmen, commonly called loyal Creeks in regard to the meaning of the provision of the treaty of 1866 about the payment to them for property lost by them during said war?- A. Quite often.
Q. What was their understanding from said treaty as to how and by whom that property was to be paid for?- A. They always claimed that under the treaty of 1866 between the Muskogee (Creek) Nation and the United States the United States was to pay all those Muskogee (Creek) Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States during the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen, for all the property lost by them during said war, and they all state that they had the understanding well defined at the time of the treaty, and that they so understood the treaty. I have never heard any expression to the contrary made by any of them. And further the deponent sayeth not.

EXHIBIT 6


GEORGE A. ALEXANDER, being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the above matter, deposes and says:

Q. What is your name?- A. My name is George Alexander.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am 58 years old
Q. Where do yon reside?- A. I reside at Wetumpka, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Indian Territory.
Q. How long have you resided and lived in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A. All my life in the Creek Nation, but not at this place all the time.
Q. What is your nationality?- A. I am a Muskogee (Creek) Indian.
Q. Were you a citizen and living in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation when the treaty of 1866 between the United States and the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indiana was made?- A. Yes; I was living there and one of the tribe.
Q. Are you now and were you then well acquainted with the Muskogee (Creek) people?- A. Yes; I knew them quite well and know them quite well now.
Q. Have you talked with a great many of them since that treaty was made in regard to the losses of property by the loyal Creek enlisted soldiers in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. Yes; I have talked to a great many of them on that subject.
Q. What was their belief and understanding as to pay for their several losses during that war as provided for in the treaty of 1866?- A. They all claimed and understood that under the treaty of 1866 all the property lost by the enlisted soldiers of the Muskogee (Creek) Nation of Indians that enlisted in the army of the United States in the war of the rebellion, loyal refugees and freedmen, were to be paid for by the United States in full when the amount was found due as provided by said treaty.
Q What offices have you held in the Muskogee (Creek) Nation?- A. I was president of the house of kings four years, and was a member of the house of kings altogether sixteen years.
Q. Are you a loyal Creek claimant?-A. No; I am not. And further sayeth not.

EXHIBIT 7

L. C. PERRYMAN, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the above cause, deposes and says:

Q. What is your name?-A. My name is L. C. Perryman.
Q. What is your age?-A. I am now 61 years old.
Q. Where do you reside?- A. I live at Tulsa, Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q. What is your nationality?-A. I am a Creek (Muskogee) Indian.
Q. How long have you lived in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation?- A. Over sixty-one years.
Q. Was you living in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation when the treaty of 1866 was made between the Creek (Muskogee) Indians and the United States? A. I was. Also I was with the claimants during the war and know their feeling in this claim.
Q. What was then and what has been the understanding of the Creek (Muskogee) Indians as to the property lost during the war of these Creek Indians who enlisted in the Federal army, loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. All the Indians at all familiar with the provisions of the treaty of 1866 believed and so understood that according to that treaty the United States was to pay the Indians that had enlisted in the army of the United States, loyal refugee Indians and freedmen, for all the property they had lost during the war.
Q. When was payment to be made by the United States?- A. When the amount of the losses of each one was ascertained by the officers of the United States named in the treaty and their awards made and approved by the Commissioner of Indian affairs and the Secretary of the Interior.
Q. Was said awards or any part thereof ever paid by the United States?- A. One hundred thousand dollars was paid pro rata on said awards; that was all.
Q. Was that $100,000 paid out of the money of the United States?- A. No; the $100,000 was paid out of money belonging to the Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q. What was the understanding of your people as to the payment of the balance of said awards?- A. The Creek (Muskogee) Indians understood and believed that the balance of said awards were to be paid by the United States.
Q. Was you ever principal chief of the Creek (Muskogee) Nation?- A. Yes; I was duly elected principal chief of the Creek (Muskogee) Nation in the year 1887, and held and discharged the duties of that office for eight years, being two terms.
Q. Did you ever hold any other office or offices m the Creek Nation? If so, what were they?- A. Judge Coweta district two years, beginning 1867. Was elected to the house of warriors of the national council and served continuously, being reelected until December, 1887, the day I took the office of principal chief. I served in the United States army in the First Indian Regiment from November, 1862, to the termination of the war; discharged at Fort Gibson, Ind. T., and have since lived in the Territory.
Q. During the time you lived in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation were you well acquainted with your people?- A. I was with my people a great deal and knew them well, and they called upon me frequently for counsel and advice.
Q. Have you heard many of them express their understanding of the treaty of 1866 and as to payment of the losses of these Indians that enlisted in the army loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. Yes; I have heard a great many express their belief about the losses of the soldiers - loyal refugees and freedmen - during the late war, and they all understood and believed that under the treaty of 1866 the United States was to pay for said losses. All the property they owned was taken when they became refugees from their homes to Kansas. Further this witness saith not.

EXHIBIT 8

THOMAS PERRYMAN, after being duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, manic nothing but the truth in the above cause, deposes and says:

Q. What is your name?- A. My name is Thomas Perryman.
Q. What is your age?- A. I am now over 60 years of age.
Q. Where do you reside, Tulsa, Ind. T.?- A. I reside at Tulsa, Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q What is our nationality?- A. I am a Creek (Muskogee) Indian.
Q. Where did you live when the treaty of 1866 was between the Creek (Muskogee) Indians and the United States?- A. I lived in the Creek (Muskogee) Nation.
Q. Were you acquainted with many of your people at that time?- A. Yes; I knew many of them quite well.
Q. What was the understanding of you and your people at that time and since as to the payment of the loss of property during the late war by the Creek Indians that had enlisted in the army of the United States - the loyal refugees and freedmen?- A. We all understood and believed that, according to the provisions of the treaty of 1866, the United States was to pay for said losses out of their Treasury.
Q. Have said losses been paid, or any part thereof?- A. The United States paid $100,000 pro rata on the awards for said property.
Q. Was that payment made out of the money of the United States or of the Indians?- A. That $100,000 payment was out of money that belonged to the Indians.
Q. Was that payment believed by you and your people to be a part payment only?- A. Yes; we all understood that the $100,000 paid on the awards for said losses to said Indians was a part payment only, and that the balance of said awards were to be paid by the United States with its own money. Further deponent saith not.

Go to Loyal Creek Claims ... 1863 Refugee Census