CHAPTER XVII
ORGANIZED INVASION

   On previous pages have been reviewed the forces that were working with the inevitability of destiny for the disintegration of the Indian country. The ground had been prepared, and now the time came for its cultivation and reaping the harvest. And men were not wanting to give personal effectiveness to the general tendencies that have already been noted.
   It has been observed that a considerable percent of the inhabitants of Indian Territory, from the time of the establishment of the five tribes there, was of white and mixed blood. But in all the efforts, before the Civil war, for the organization of a territorial government, there was not, so far as known, any definite scheme for the ultimate attainment of anything more than an Indian commonwealth, where the aboriginal tribes would continue to be preponderant, both in population and in ownership of property and civic control. Soon after the war, however, another spirit is manifested in the movements for the organization of this country. At once it becomes apparent that the promoters of such legislation were actuated by the desire not only to give Indian Territory a civil government similar to those in other territories, but also to open this country to a less restricted intercourse with the rest of the Union—in short to allow the resources of this country to be developed under the same conditions that held elsewhere, only permitting the Indian inhabitants the privileges that priority of occupation guaranteed to them. The logic at the basis of these movements was most reasonable: The Indians have possessed this fertile country for years; their possession has not resulted in complete utilization and development, and thousands of acres lie idle which a proper enterprise would make productive of all the fruits of labor and civilization; therefore, why not bestow this natural paradise upon men capable of profiting by its opportunities?¹
   These views may have been entertained among individuals for a long time, but an enterprise so vast in scope as the opening of a country larger than the average Amer-[ican]

[Footnotes]
   ¹In 1859 the superintendent of the southern Indian superintendency said: "Conveyed by patent to the Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Seminoles, it [the Indian Territory] is said to belong to them in fee simple. But this is a misuse of the term; since they have no power of disposition or alienation, a power inseparable from a fee simple. They have a right of perpetual occupancy and use, and no more; but that right is exclusive of the whole of this vast territory, of such enormous capacity for production. These Indians actually occupy and use not a five-thousandth part, and could sell enough to make themselves and their children rich, and still have ample estates in land left for each, with princely endowments for schools and colleges. I have already spoken in a previous report, of the certainty that this fine country must ultimately, and at no distant day, be formed into states. Not only the remorseless flow of our population, but stern political necessities make this decree as fixed as fate." (Sen. Doc. 1st Sess., 36th Cong., vol. I, p. 531.) Elsewhere the superintendent makes his southern sympathies apparent, and probably the "political necessities" which he emphasizes refer to the opening of the Indian country to slaveholding immigration and the addition of another southern state to the Union.

169

170

[Amer]ican state for settlement required, besides men of broad sagacity and great influence, the power of determined organization and persistent effort working in the medium of the federal government. For this reason, it is natural that the first comprehensive plan for the organization of Indian Territory originated in Congress, and a quarter of a century before it was finally accomplished.
   For the history of these movements it is fortunate that the narrative of the principal actor in the long struggle for the opening of Oklahoma can be published here. This narrative, as dictated by Mr. Sidney Clarke for this publication, forms the most interesting of the "original documents" in the bibliography of Oklahoma history, since it is the detailed personal experience of the man who consistently for a period of forty years advocated and worked with all the adroit persistency of his nature for the opening of the Oklahoma country and its development into statehood. The story as told by Mr. Clarke reviews many of the events discussed on previous pages, and also carried the history of Oklahoma forward to accomplished statehood. Though it thus anticipates many of the succeeding chapters, his narrative possesses a continuity of interest that forbids its insertion in chronological order. Mr. Clarke's review of the movements which brought about the establishment of Oklahoma, first as a place of white men's colonization, and later as a state, follows:
   "My interest in the opening of Oklahoma to settlement and civilization commenced soon after my location in Kansas in the spring of 1859. I was attracted there, like thousands of others, because of the great controversy that was then going on between freedom and slavery. The whole country was profoundly excited as to whether Kansas was to become a free or a slave state, and all over New England and the northern states the trend of emigration was to that territory. I was the editor of a paper in my native town in Massachusetts, and ardently supported Fremont and Dayton in the presidential election of 1856. On my arrival in Kansas I immediately became identified with the Free State party. Constitutional conventions had been held at Topeka, LeCompton and Leavenworth, but all the constitutions formed were rejected by Congress. It seemed settled, however, that Kansas was to be admitted as a free state at the time the Wyandotte constitutional convention assembled, July 5, 1859. That convention was composed almost entirely of free-state men. They formed what is now, with the exceptions of a few amendments, the constitution of Kansas, an din the ensuing fall the first free-state government was elected, though the territory was not admitted to statehood until January 29, 1861.
   "The slavery question settled, a public attention was attracted to questions relating to the material development of the state. At that time the Missouri Pacific Railroad had only reached Jefferson City on the east, and it was not until some time later that the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad reached the Missouri at St. Joseph. The proposition of an outlet to the Gulf was regarded as of supreme importance by those of us who believed in the future possibilities of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Indian Territory on the south. The result of the agitation was that, when the usual land grants made to new states by Congress were made to Kansas in 1863, one of the lines of railroad provided for was from Leavenworth on the Missouri River by the way of Lawrence to the south line of the state in the direction of Galveston, Texas.

171

   "This road was a favorite project of Gen. James H. Lane, the most conspicuous of the free-state leaders, and who afterward became one of the first United States senators from Kansas. I read the law in the office of General Lane at Lawrence, became his private secretary, went with him to Washington, and remained in that position during the first year of the Civil war. I was thoroughly imbued with the idea that an outlet to the Gulf was the natural course of transportation for the products of Kansas and the surrounding states and territories, and that the time must soon come when the treaties that closed the door to the entry of white settlement in the Indian Territory would be modified, and that in the progress of future emigration they must give way to the necessities of the situation. I realized then, with others, that the battle to break down the treaty system and supplant it with a more liberal policy would be hard and long, but I was confident of the outcome, and thought that I saw clearly that the great southwest was to be formed into a galaxy of states instead of being forever dedicated to Indian possession. I was thoroughly possessed of the idea expressed by William H. Seward in one of his speeches on the Kansas controversy, in which he said: 'When the emigrant from the old world shall find his way to the new, and steps his foot on the west bank of the Missouri, he will there enter upon a broad land of impartial freedom.'
   "As time went on my interest increased in the question of opening the Indian Territory to settlement. I realized that the treaties which provided that the country of the five civilized tribes should never be included in the limits of any territory or state were a serious barrier to the railroad outlet to the Gulf, but I was in no way discouraged. As a member of the state legislature in 1862 I continued to urge the importance of the project. In the fall of 1864 I was elected to Congress, which gave me a wider field for agitation and placed in my hands more effective weapons for efficient work. I introduced and Congress passed several bills providing for lines of road terminating on the south line of the state. My bill granting lands to the state to aid the Kansas, Neosho Valley Railroad Co. to construct a line of road from the eastern terminus of the Union Pacific Railroad, Eastern Division, which became a law on July 25, 1866, provided for a line through the eastern tier of counties to the south line of the state with a provision for its extension so as to effect a junction at Red River with the road then being constructed from Galveston to Red River at, or near, Preston in Texas. This bill was intended to carry out the purpose of the land grant act of 1863, which contemplated the line through the Indian Territory with Preston as the terminal point.
   "Section 8 of the bill went still further and provided that with the consent of the Indians by treaty, endorsed by the president, any railroad company under any law of the United States, or the state of Kansas, might unite with the Neosho Valley Railroad Co., in the alley of the Neosho river; and further provided that should the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Ft. Gibson Railroad Co. or Union Pacific Co., southern branch, construct and complete its road to that point on the southern boundary of Kansas where the line of the Kansas & Neosho Valley Railroad Co. crossed the same before the Kansas & Neosho Valley Railroad Co. had completed its road to said point, then in that event the company first reaching the state line was authorized, upon obtaining written approval of the president of the United States, to construct and

172

open a line of road through the Indian Territory to a point near Preston in the state of Texas.
  "I have referred to these laws in detail because they constituted the first practical movement to penetrate the Indian Territory with a railroad and broke the first link that bound that territory as with chains to the policy of exclusion of white settlement.
   "The first step having been taken looking to the final opening of the Indian Territory, other efforts followed in more rapid succession. On entering Congress I became a member of the committee on Indian affairs, and also a member of the committee on the Pacific Railroad, then in course of construction. The question of providing a territorial government for the Indian Territory seemed to me to be the second logical step looking to its final opening. I had no desire, nor had the committee of which I was a member, to violate any of the treaties which protected the five tribes in the possession of their lands, or to impair, in any way, the practical fee simple title by which these lands were held. But, at the same time, the lands lying west of the five tribes, subsequently organized into the territory of Oklahoma, were held by different tenures and were controlled by various treaty stipulations, and were occupied by a very few Indians. These anomalous conditions were subjects of protracted discussions in the committee. Col. Robert T. Van Horn, representing the Kansas City district in Missouri, was a member of the committee and took a deep interest in the project to establish civil government in the Indian Territory, and to open the way for railroad transportation to the Gulf. Col. Van Horn, who is still living, was an exceedingly able member of Congress, a brilliant editor, a comprehensive statesman, and in all respects one of the best men I ever knew in public or private life. He introduced in the thirty-ninth Congress [1866] a bill to establish a territorial government covering the whole of the Indian Territory, but the Indians, supported by treaty stipulations, denied the right of Congress to establish such a government and nothing was accomplished in that direction.² The

[Footnotes]
   ²The reporting of a bill creating a territory of Oklahoma, from the house committee on territories, February 2, 1873, brought out a strong protest from the Creek and Cherokee delegations. D. N. McIntosh and Pleasant Porter represented the Creeks, while the Cherokee delegates were W. P. Ross, William P. Adair and C. N. Vann. Their memorial (in house Mis. Doc. No. 110, 42d Cong., 3d Sess.), after asserting the inviolable right of the Indians to their lands, and protesting against the alleged misstatements of the committee's report, proceeds in the following vigorous and emphatic language:
   "Above all do we protest against a measure to throw our country open to those who covet our lands, to break down our governments, so as to leave us at the mercy of our enemies, and to destroy our organization as a people, so that our property and our land might be left without legal owners, to the end that railroad corporations might seize them, while they endeavor to cover up this cruel wrong by the pretext that it is a 'contest between savageism and civilization' . . . .
   "Throughout this report, and in the arguments used to you against us, it is continually assumed that the Indian country is the theatre of violence and lawlessness; that there is no adequate government machinery; that immense herds of Texas cattle are stopped at our borders and cannot cross to market; that railroads cannot be built; that emigrants cannot pass; that white men can only be tried by Indian tribunals; that the 'necessities of civilization' are in an agony, and that a savage Indian, with war paint and tomahawk, stands guard at the gateway of civilization.
   "The absurdity of such statements . . . is only equaled by their mendacity. . . . Not only have our people exported large herds of cattle to you markets. . . . Every year hundreds of thousands of these [Texas] cattle are peaceably driven through our country. During the emigrant seasons hundreds of emigrant teams crowd the highways through our country, and a murder or robbery against them has hardly been known. In all cases between white man and Indians the jurisdiction by law and treaty is in

173

bill was re-introduced in the fortieth Congress, and while frequently discussed was not supported by a majority of the committee. In the forty-first Congress I became the chairman of the committee. The bill was again re-introduced, favorably reported to the house, and was taken up for consideration. The committee on the territories, of which the Hon. S. M. Cullom (now senator from Illinois) was chairman, raised the question of jurisdiction, and a protracted debate ensued on the right of the Indian committee, under the rules of the house, to report a territorial bill. As a result of the debate the bill was referred to a joint committee, composed of members of the Indian committee and territorial committee, for further consideration, and the session expired without any final action. It was in this bill that the name of Oklahoma first made an official appearance. It was suggested by Col. E. C. Boudinot, Jr., a Cherokee lawyer, who was in full sympathy with an active worker for the opening of the Indian Territory to white settlement. Colonel Boudinot rendered to the friends of the movement most effective service by arguments before the Indian committees of both houses of Congress, by public speeches, and by furnishing a vast amount of useful information bearing upon questions of Indian possessions. He regarded most of the land west of the five tribes as substantially public lands, and, as they were largely unoccupied, he believed that they should be opened to homestead settlement. Colonel Boudinot was a remarkable man in many ways. He was an able orator, with a vast amount of historical information, and was devoted alike to the welfare of his race and to the progress of white civilization in the southwest.
   "In this connection let me state the manner in which the treaty system which had prevailed since the foundation of the government was abolished. I was a member of the conference committee on the Indian appropriation bill in the forty-first Congress. Mr. Sargent of California, and Mr. Beck of Kentucky, both of whom were afterward senators, were my colleagues on the part of the house, and Mr. Morrill of Maine, Mr. Harlan of Iowa, and Mr. Davis of Kentucky were the members on the part of the senate. The committee was in session during an entire night. After all de-[tails]

[Footnotes]
the courts of the United States. . . . It was provided by treaty that a distinct United States court for the Indian Territory should be created, and we have petitioned you earnestly for its immediate creation. If it has not been so far created, the fault is yours, not ours. That the public peace is jeoparded for want of law is, however, a gross exaggeration. Railroads are being peaceably built through our country. They are in part built in advance of the demands of business and because it was a speculation to build them, and the animus of no small portion of all this hostility against us comes from the desire to convince you that lands held by the Indians are something that can be stolen with impunity whenever they are sufficiently valuable to tempt cupidity."
   A memorial, dated June 12, 1878, opposing the passage of a bill to organize the territory of Oklahoma, was signed by the following representatives of the five tribes: P. P. Pitchlynn of the Choctaws, W. P. Adair and Dan H. Ross of the Cherokees, John R. Moore, P. Porter, D. M. Hodge and Yarteker Harjo of the Creeks, John F. Brown and Thomas Cloud of the Seminoles, and B. F. Overton, the Chickasaw governor.
   The provisions of the bills before Congress to which the Indians objected were the following: 1. The opening to white settlers of country set apart by law and treaty exclusively for Indians. 2. The extension of United States laws and court jurisdiction to all causes of action, civil or criminal. 3. Abolition of tribal relations and adoption of Indians as United States citizens. 4. Lands in severalty. The memorialists claimed that such provisions conflicted with the solemn guarantees that no part of lands should be included, without the Indians' consent, in the limits of any state or territory, and the promise that they be forever secured the right to be governed by their own laws.

174

[de]tails had been settled I remarked to the committee that about two years before I had introduced a bill in the house providing that it should not be competent for the United States to recognize the Indian tribes as independent nations, but that hereafter all contracts with said tribes must be ratified or reject by both houses of Congress. Without objection on the part of the senate confrères my bill was inserted in the conference report and in this manner became the law of the land. I think it safe to say that had it not been for the abrogation of the treaty system at that time the settlement of Oklahoma would have been much longer delayed.
   "While the agitation still went on, it was not until 1878-9 that the question of opening Oklahoma to white settlement became more prominent in Congress. In the meantime emigrants to the west were numerous and the frontier states were rapidly filling up with new settlers. The land west of the five tribes, being mostly vacant, passed into the illegal possession of cattlemen, and vast cattle ranches were established in the Cherokee outlet, in the Cheyenne and Arapahoe country, and in the lands ceded by the Seminoles and Creeks. Naturally this condition of affairs led to controversy between those who were seeking homestead settlement in the west and the men who controlled the cattle industry. As time went on this feeling became exceedingly bitter, and at the commencement of Mr. Cleveland's first administration the question of opening the country to white settlement became still more prominent. It was a battle between the cattlemen on one side and the homestead settlers on the other.
   "It was at this time, and even before, that Capt. David L. Payne became the advocate and leader of the intending settlers. Capt. Payne was a remarkable man. He was a Union soldier in the Civil war, and was not finally discharged from the army until 1867. In 1868, when General Sheridan made his famous campaign against the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, Payne served as a scout over western and central Oklahoma, and in this way became familiar with the condition and resources of the country. On his return to Washington he became an officer of the house of representatives and commenced to organize a movement to invade Oklahoma, on the theory that it was public land, and should be opened to homestead settlement. He originated the organization of what was known as the Payne Oklahoma Colony. The members were made up mostly from the western and central states, but it is probable that there was not a state in the Union but had some of its citizens on the roll of the colony. The energy and determination with which Payne pursued his propaganda is well known to the country. He was repeatedly arrested by the United States authorities and dragged out of Oklahoma in the most brutal manner. But this did not in the least deter him from his purpose. He sought these arrests with a view of testing in the courts the legal status of the land his colony was seeking to occupy, but the United States evaded the issue, and in every case he was discharged without a trial. The sudden death of Payne at Wellington, Kansas, did not check the movement he originated. Capt. W. L. Couch, a native of North Carolina, subsequently of Kansas, became the leader of the colony, and with an energy not less determined than that of Payne continued the battle for the possession of the country. I first met Captain Couch at a convention of Boomers held at Topeka during the session of the legislation of 1879. I was at that time a member of the Kansas legisla-[ture]

175

[legisla]ture and speaker of the house. The convention was largely attended and resolutions were passed strongly favoring the movement. Addresses were made by myself, Hon. David Overmire of Topeka, and several others, before the members of the legislature in the hall of the house of representatives, urging the opening of Oklahoma and invoking the influence of the people of Kansas, through their legislature, in that direction. It became evident that the views which we entertained as to the status of the Oklahoma lands could not be carried out without congressional action, and steps were taken for an appeal to Congress looking to the establishment of a territorial government. After the election of Cleveland in 1884 I represented the colony at Washington and commenced there the work which, in its varying fortunes, only ended with the passage of the enabling act creating the state of Oklahoma. It would require a volume to relate all the incidents connected with this long and earnest controversy.
   "In July, 1885, I first visited the western part of Oklahoma and made a through investigation of existing conditions. I was commissioned by the Chicago Tribune to go to Ft. Reno with General Sheridan, who was sent there by the president to settle, peaceably, if possible, the trouble with the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians. I was ordered to send full dispatches to the Tribune, not only in reference to these troubles, but also the true facts as to the possession of the country by the cattlemen. It had been contended in the United States senate that there were no cattle in the disputed lands. General Sheridan came out from Washington accompanied by General Miles, who had large experience in connection with Indian affairs. I joined the party at Lawrence. When we arrived at the terminus of the railroad at Caldwell, Kansas, military preparations had been made for Sheridan's journey to Ft. Reno. Troops had been stationed every eight or ten miles over the entire road, as it was understood that the Indians were about to go on the war path. The governor of Kansas had concentrated a large body of militia near the state line and the war department had ordered to Ft. Reno troops from Nebraska, Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Texas. We had great difficulty in reaching Ft. Reno and were greatly hindered by the floods at Pond Creek, the Cimarron and Salt Fork. When we reached the Cimarron it was crossed by constructing a boat out of an army ambulance, wrapping it with canvas, and hauling it across the stream to the south side by a long rope. On arriving at Ft. Reno a serious state of affairs was found. The Cheyenne and Arapahoe Indians were in an ugly mood. They had on their war paint and were in open rebellion, not only against the white people who were crowding on their reservation, but against he cattlemen who had divided their reservation into six large pastures from which the Indians were obtaining but little revenue. After repeated councils, General Sheridan ordered them to report to Darlington agency on a certain day, for the purpose of being counted. The order was obeyed, but in making their camp they crowded in close to the agency buildings, and erected their tepees so irregularly that it was impossible to make a correct census. At a conference with the chiefs they absolutely refused to move their teepees and threatened war. As a result of the council General Sheridan informed that that unless on the following day they moved out upon the prairie with their tepees, located at a certain distance apart, pointed out by him, he would order out the troops and force

176

them to do so. To this ultimatum the Indians refused to accede. Upon reconsideration, however, they concluded to obey Sheridan's order, and the camp was established in regular form and the census of the tribe taken. I was present during the count, and with the exception of twenty or thirty engaged in teaming between Caldwell and Ft. Reno, an accurate count was made. My recollection is, that the number was about 2,100 less than the beef rations that had been previously issued to the Indians by the fraudulent contractors. Not withstanding that the Indians consented to be counted, they still maintained a hostile attitude, and it was not until General Sheridan ordered out the army, fully equipped for action, composed of about twenty-eight troops, to enforce his demands, that the Indians showed any disposition to make a peaceable agreement.
   "While these events were transpiring the condition of affairs was submitted by General Sheridan to President Cleveland and his cabinet. They were told that the cattlemen and the beef contractors were the real cause of the trouble. The opinion of Attorney General Garland was asked as to the legality of the cattlemen's occupancy. It was promptly rendered to the effect that their occupancy was entirely illegal, not only in the Arapahoe and Cheyenne lands, but in the Cherokee outlet and the other Indian lands. This opinion resulted in the tearing down of fences on the Cheyenne and Arapahoe reservation, the general removal of cattle, the appointment of a new agent, and a thorough exposure of the frauds that had been practiced upon the government and the Indians in many ways. After negotiations were peaceably concluded, in company with a representative of the Chicago Herald, I made a trip as far east as Council Grove, about eight miles west of the present location of Oklahoma City, and scouted for several days through the surrounding country. I found that instead of its being true, as stated in the senate, that the country visited was free from cattle occupancy, thousands of cattle were scattered over the prairies. We lived sumptuously with the cowboys in their numerous camps, getting much information, all of which I reported to the Tribune. With this experience I felt better prepared to represent the boomers, and on my return to Washington at the following session of Congress I was armed and equipped with weapons for a vigorous warfare. The Chicago Tribune had been vigorously advocating the Oklahoma movement and we were greatly indebted to that paper for creating public sentiment in its favor.
   "Early in December, 1885, I was asked by Gen. James B. Weaver of Iowa, William M. Springer of Illinois, members of the house, and Senator Charles H. Van Wyck of Nebraska, to prepare a bill providing for a territorial government for the territory of Oklahoma, for introduction into the house and senate. The day I received the dispatch Captain Couch reached my home at Lawrence, Kansas, and we immediately prepared the measure and forwarded it to Washington. Soon after Captain Couch and myself proceeded to that city. After long consideration by the house committee, and some changes, the bill took the name of the Springer bill, that gentleman being chairman of the committee on territories, and an ardent friend of the measure. Feeling the need of the influence of the press in the eastern states I went to Charles Nordorf, at that time one of the editors of the New York Herald, and chief of its Washington bureau, and invoked the support of the Herald for the territorial bill which had been introduced.

177

Mr. Nordorf was the author of the history of California, and feeling a deep interest in the progress of the west, he at once in his correspondence with the Herald, and in editorial articles, entered upon a vigorous support of the Springer bill, publishing almost daily elaborate articles about the conditions which existed in Oklahoma, and giving the reasons why the cattle interests should be displaced and the country opened to homestead settlement. I labored to the best of my ability to convince Secretary Lamar, of the interior department, and also President Cleveland, that the influence of the administration should be used to open Oklahoma to settlement. Mr. Cleveland listened patiently to my appeals, and at one time seemed to accept the views I entertained in regard to creating the territory of Oklahoma, but the interior department under Secretary Lamar, was wedded to the exclusion policy and favored the possession of the cattlemen. Of course, we had the opposition of the five tribes. As often as Captain Couch, myself and others, appeared before the committees of the house and senate, arguing in favor of the bill, we were met by the representatives and attorneys of the Indians with the claim that the treaties provided that the country should never be included within the limits of any territory or states. This was a hard proposition to meet, although many of the members of Congress believed that the time had come to exercise the power of Congress by direct legislation. I will not give in detail all the various features of the controversy over the bill, extending up to the session of 1889. It was a long and bitter fight. I want to say, however, that to Gen. James B. Weaver, Mr. Springer of Illinois, Mr. Mansur of Missouri, Senator Van Wyck, and to Mr. Stockdale of Mississippi, we were more largely indebted than to any other men for waging the battle in our behalf. The Springer bill was passed in the house by 46 majority after a most desperate controversy. The bill had been on the calendar and entitled to consideration for many weeks, but the committee on rules arbitrarily refused to set a day for its consideration. In the meantime that session of Congress was drawing to a close and the bill could not receive consideration without special order. Under these circumstances General Weaver commenced a filibuster, which lasted for three days, forcing the committee on rules to abandon its arbitrary denial and set a day for the consideration of the bill.
   "When the bill reached the senate it was referred to committee on the territories and was vigorously opposed by the cattle interests. Ex-Senator McDonald of Indiana and a law firm of New York, as well as the Indian attorneys, appeared before the committee denying the right of Congress to pass the bill, and made protracted arguments against its being favorably reported to the senate. Notwithstanding these appeals the bill was favorably reported and placed in the hands of Senator Cullom, who was instructed to call it up for consideration at the earliest opportunity. When the bill was called up, much to our surprise, it was strongly opposed by Senator Plumb of Kansas, and by other senators whom we had reason to believe would give it their support, and after a heated discussion the bill was defeated by a yea and nay vote. But desperate as the situation was, neither Captain Couch nor myself, who had spent much time and money at Washington, were not wholly discouraged, and we appealed to our friends in the house to provide for the opening of what is now known as the original Oklahoma, by an amendment to the Indian appropriation

178

bill. The amendment was hastily prepared by General Weaver, Mr. Springer, Mr. Perkins of Kansas, Captain Couch and myself, passed the house that night, and after much opposition in the senate, was adopted and became a law. It contained no provision for any kind of government but it aroused at once an increased interest in all parts of the country in the Oklahoma movement. The members of the Payne colony, as well as intending settlers in all the border states, began to gather in Kansas preparatory to entering the promised land.
   "The president's proclamation fixed April 22, 1889, at 12 o'clock, as the time of opening. When the time arrived, thousands of people were gathered upon the borders ready to rush in and take possession. Never before in the history of the United States, or any other country,w as such a scene presented as the rush for free homes at the opening hour. Although the area of the land opened amounted to but little more than 1,800,00 acres there were ten times more people ready to take land than there was land to take. The run was made from all sides at precisely 12 o'clock, M. From the south line of the Cherokee outlet, from the Indian reserves on the east, from the South Canadian river on the south, and from the Cheyenne and Arapahoe reservation on the west, came the excited thousands. It was altogether a most wonderful gathering of people. All classes mingled in the rush. Before the going down of the sun on that eventful day more than 50,000 people had commenced to make their homes. It must be said to the credit of all that there was little disorder or ill feeling in this remarkable movement of population, considering that self interest was one of the potent forces. Oklahoma City and Guthrie were the central points in the great rush. Probably 10,000 people were on the townsite of Oklahoma City by nightfall, and an almost equal number on the townsite of Guthrie. In the absence of law, either federal or local, provisional municipal governments were immediately formed for the protection of life and property. Captain Couch was elected mayor of Oklahoma City and the usual form of municipal government, which obtained in the state, was adopted. The act creating the territory of Oklahoma was approved on May the 2d, 1890. Considering the exceptional conditions that prevailed from the opening day up to that time, it must be said to the credit of the first settlers of Oklahoma that life and property were as safe as though there had been a regular government in operation. During this period a movement was originated at Guthrie to establish a provisional government over the entire territory. This movement met with very stern opposition from the citizens of Oklahoma City and the people in general. A convention was called at Frisco in Canadian county for the purpose of protesting against it. This convention was the first general convention that was held in Oklahoma, and was largely attended. After a heated discussion of the project pro and con, it was resolved that it would be impossible for a provisional territorial government, unless established with great unanimity, to compel obedience to its laws, or to enforce a system of taxation from which it could derive support, and notice was given that the people would refuse to recognize any such government. And this was the end of the project.
   "Soon after the act organizing the territory became a law, the statehood movement was started. The first convention was held at Oklahoma City in 1891. I prepared a call for the convention, and

179

had it endorsed by the Oklahoma City Commercial Club. The convention was in many respects a notable gathering. It was composed of the leading men of the territory, and much interest was manifested in its proceedings. All phases of the statehood question were ably debated and a memorial to Congress was adopted, setting forth the conditions existing here, and praying for the passage of an enabling act admitting Oklahoma as a state. The statehood movement, which commenced at that time, covered a period of more than fifteen years. Conventions were held at Purcell, El Reno, Kingfisher, Oklahoma City, Shawnee and Guthrie. For the first ten years of the controversy the movement was of an entirely non-partisan character. Democrats, Republicans and Populists participated, and vied with each other in the effort to secure statehood. I was for ten years the chairman of the nonpartisan executive statehood committee, composed of one member from each of the counties of the territory, and during all that time every possible influence was brought to bear to secure the passage of an enabling act. As the representative of the committee, and afterwards in behalf of the commercial and business interests of the territory, I advocated the admission as a state before the committees of Congress with whatever ability I possessed. In every Congress statehood bills were introduced and arguments made before the territorial committees in behalf of the measure. The senate committee was the tomb of all these bills. In the fifty-third Congress General Wheeler of Alabama, chairman of the committee on the territories, favorably reported a bill for the admission of Oklahoma as a state by unanimous vote of the committee. Although the territory was less than five years old the report declared that 'The committee is convinced that there is an enviable future for this territory, and that its progress would be much enhanced by its being admitted to statehood.' In the fifty-fifth Congress a statehood bill was favorably reported, and the report concluded as follows: 'In the opinion of the committee no territory has ever been better situated to enter the Union as a state.' While these bills died upon the calendar of the house, we pursued the matter in each succeeding Congress and in the fifty-eighth Congress, what was known as the Flynn bill passed the house without a division. This measure met with determined opposition on the part of the senate committee, and after a full hearing a majority of the committee reported a substitute providing for joint statehood for Indian Territory and Oklahoma. Senator Quay of Pennsylvania, and the Democratic members of the committee, dissented from the report of the majority and endorsed, in elaborate reports, the Flynn bill as it passed the house. Senator Quay took charge of the bill in the senate and had a majority of sixteen in its favor. But a filibuster was organized in the senate and by protracted speeches and other tactics, a vote on the measure was defeated. This was a great disappointment to the people of Oklahoma, but it in no way abated their desire for statehood. The contest in Congress for recognition went right on as before. In the meantime the population of both Oklahoma and Indian Territory rapidly increased. Altogether it was many times larger than that of any other territory which had been admitted as a state, the opposition to the passage of an enabling act gradually diminished until the passage of the act under which we entered the Union."
   "During the many years that I was identified with the movement to open Okla-[homa]

180

[Okla]homa to settlement, and with the statehood movement, I was brought into contact with many of the prominent men of the country, and was placed under many personal an public obligations for the courtesy and kindness with which I was treated. If I were called upon to name one man to whom the people of Oklahoma owe the greatest debt of gratitude because of unselfish devotion to their interests in all the early stages of the controversy, I should name Gen. James B. Weaver of Iowa. He entered Congress at the time when the services of an able courageous leader were most needed. He had been a candidate for president of the United States, was a gallant general in the Union army, an able lawyer, a skillful debater, in full sympathy with the common people, and in every way abundantly qualified to meet our opponents in Congress or elsewhere. Had it not been for the remarkable filibuster, to which I have alluded, the Springer bill would never have been considered by the house, and no one can tell how long it would have been before Oklahoma would have been opened for settlement.
   "Another statesman to whom Oklahoma owes a great debt of gratitude was William M. Springer of Illinois. For twenty years he was an able member of the house of representatives. As a leader of his party, as an able parliamentarian, and accomplished legislator, he championed our cause with an enthusiasm which commanded our admiration. And still another man equally able and efficient in our behalf was Senator Charles H. Van Wyck of Nebraska. Senator Van Wyck was at one time a member of Congress from a district in New York. He was my personal friend, a friend of the people, courageous, honest and an ideal public servant. The first member of the house from the southern states enlisted in behalf of Oklahoma was Thomas R. Stockdale of Mississippi. I remember well when I pressed our case upon his attention and how he promptly espoused our cause. The congressional records will show the great ability with which he advocated the establishment of a territorial government. Mr. Stockdale was a Pennsylvanian by birth, settled in Mississippi in 1857, held many responsible offices, was four times elected to Congress, and was afterwards judge of the supreme court of that state. Still another man whose services were of great value to Oklahoma was Samuel W. Peel of Arkansas, who was for many years chairman on the committee of Indian affairs of the house. His residence in Arkansas, adjacent to the Indian Territory, and his position as a member of the committee, made him familiar with the conditions in Oklahoma and in the fragmentary legislation connected with the original opening his services were invaluable.
   "In looking back over the long controversy in connection with the Indian question and in the securing of territorial organization and the statehood bills, I recall many and varied incidents. While I was chairman of the house committee on Indian affairs I was invited to deliver an address in New York City, at Cooper Union, on the proper solution of the Indian problem. I accepted the invitation, and spoke at length advocating the abolition of tribal relations, the division of the land in severalty, and liberal appropriations to pay for their surplus land and for their industrial education. I insisted that the Indian tribes should be no longer treated as independent nations, and that as our Christian civilization was better than barbarism, the protection of our laws should be extended over every reservation in the United States. I contended that our Indian policy ought to

181

be equitable and just to all concerned, but at the same time it must be recognized that the jurisdiction of the federal government was supreme. I made no exception of the five civilized tribes, calling attention to the fact that it was inevitable that territorial government and statehood would be established there in the not distant future. To my surprise these views met with enthusiastic responses from the great audience and the venerable Peter Cooper, who presided, and the Rev. Howard Crosby and other speakers strongly endorsed my position as the practical solution of the Indian question.
   "My public life in Kansas commenced in 1861 as a member of the second legislature, at the very time we were planning for a railroad outlet through the Indian Territory to the Gulf of Mexico. From February 9, 1862, to February 20, 1865, I served in the Union army as assistant adjutant general of volunteers; first of the staff of Major James G. Blunt, and afterward as assistant provost marshal general for Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado and Dakota, with headquarters in the city of Leavenworth. I was superintendent of the volunteer recruiting service for the same district. This necessarily made me familiar with the condition of affairs that existed in the Indian Territory and fastened upon me the conviction that a great state ought to be created here at the earliest possible moment. When I was first elected to Congress in the fall of 1864, and during the succeeding six years that I was a member of the house, my interest in the opening of this country and formation of a state was constantly increasing. I remember well the talk I had with Mr. Lincoln in regard to the future of this interior country. Mr. Lincoln had visited Kansas and made speeches in several of the Missouri river towns and his election to the presidency had grown out of the Kansas controversy. His whole life had been practically identified with the pioneers of the west. Hence it was he felt a profound interest in the settlement of the west and the founding of states out of the Louisiana Purchase. With the exception of President Arthur I have had a personal acquaintance with all the presidents since 1861. In 1866 I urged upon President Johnson the propriety of a movement looking to the creation and establishment of civil government in the Indian Territory.
   "During the administration of President Grant I frequently urged upon him the necessity of such legislation, and as I have already said I pleaded with Mr. Cleveland to give his official sanction to our cause. When General Grant became president he adopted what is known as the 'Quaker policy' for the purpose of eliminating from the Indian service the grafts that had become common scandal in connection with many of the Indian agencies and contracts for supplies. The Indian agents were selected from the ranks of the Quaker denomination, and these officers were removed as far as possible from partisan control. But President Grant was by no means satisfied with the reservation system or with the independent tribal governments. My position as chairman of the house committee of Indian affairs in the forty-first Congress, which included the first two years of his administration, gave me the opportunity to urge upon him my views, and the views of the members of my committee relating to the assignment of the land of the Indians in severalty and the abolition of the tribal governments. He admitted that such a result would be finally reached and that citizenship and the individual home would be best, especially for the five civilized tribes in the Indian Territory, and for

182

all other Indians who had attained a high degree of civilization. But he doubted whether it would be wise at that time to apply the policy to the tribes less advanced in the habits of civilized life.
   "President Hayes had some advanced ideas on the Indian question. As a member of Congress, with whom I was associated, and as president, he took more than a passing interest in the management of the Indian service and at times was greatly troubled on account of the unsatisfactory conditions that existed. I urged upon him, as I had urged in Congress and upon other presidents, that the time had arrived when the federal government should, by proper legislation, settle the Indians upon homesteads and open the surplus land to white settlement, compensating the tribes upon an equitable basis. Already the movement to open Oklahoma to settlement was in motion. Payne and Couch and others were planning an invasion. During the winter of 1878-9 the movement assumed such formidable proportions that President Hayes issued a proclamation warning the intending settlers that if they entered upon the lands they would be removed by military forces of the United States. In his third annual message to the ensuing session of Congress President Hayes said: 'It is my purpose to protect the rights of Indian inhabitants of that territory to the full extent of the executive power; but it would be unwise to ignore the fact that a territory so large and so fertile, with a population so sparse and with so great a wealth of unused resources, will be found more exposed to the repetition of such attempts as happened this year when the surrounding states are more densely settled and the westward movement of our population looks still more eagerly for fresh lands to occupy. Under such circumstances the difficulty of maintaining the Indian Territory in its present state will greatly increase, and the Indian tribes inhabiting it would do well to prepare for such a contingency. I therefore fully approve of the advice given to them by the secretary of the interior on a recent occasion, to divide among themselves in severalty as large a quantity of their lands as they can cultivate; to acquire individual title in fee instead of their present tribal ownership in common, and to consider in what manner the balance of their lands may be disposed of by the government for benefit. By adopting such a policy they would more certainly secure for themselves the value of their possessions, and at the time promote progress in civilization and prosperity, than by endeavoring to perpetuate the present state of things in the Territory.'
   "Mr. Garfield was another president whose vision extended beyond the Mississippi. He was a student and a statesman. He was the friend of the new states and wanted more. Had he lived out his term I am confident that he would have aided the Oklahoma movement in his official capacity. I was his seat companion during one Congress, and often discussed with him the status of the Indian tribes, and the necessity of establishing civil government in all the unorganized portion of the Louisiana Purchase. He agreed that holding the land in common must give way to individual ownership, and that the welfare of the Indians would be promoted by adopting the laws and customs of the white population by which they were surrounded.
   "Now that Oklahoma has been admitted to the Union and destined in the near future to be one of the most populous of American commonwealths, I cannot but feel that the long and expensive controversy with which I was connected has brought to me abund-[ant]

183

[abund]ant compensation. I had no expectation of an official position in the new state, or of any personal benefits for services rendered, but having been connected with the struggle to make a free state of Kansas as in Oklahoma, and experiencing the magnificent results which followed, I feel now that the highest honor that can come to any man is to be numbered among the founders of great and prosperous states, in which is enacted a just system of laws, and developed to the highest perfection the educational, charitable, and religious institutions, which are the pride and glory of our American civilization."