|
CHAPTER XXVI
THE STATEHOOD MOVEMENT
The year 1906 will be
always regarded as the year when the preparation of
Oklahoma and Indian territories for statehood was
finished; when manifold influences and human endeavors
were brought to a climax of fruition. On March 4 the
five civilized tribes ceased legally to exist. In
the latter part of the same year the opening of the
"Big Pasture" in southwestern Oklahoma completed
the expansion of settlement over that territory. On
the one sie, 350,000 Indians and whites were working
together, on term of equlity and free individual copetition,
for the advancement of common institutions and material
and social prosperity. On the other side, 400,000
inhabitants of an organized territory were pursuing
happiness and domestic welfare with no restrictions
except such as the federal government imposed. Between
these two peoples were no differences of race or political
prejudice, and only an irregular and unscientific
boundary line placed a nominal distinction between
their social and business activities. There were,
it is true, inequalities of development between the
two sections. The larger portion of Oklahoma had for
years possessed civil organization after the manner
of older states; it had public roads, a public school
system, and other institutions of organized society;
Indian Territory was at the beginning of development
in some of these things. But, of greater importance
than these differences, the two territories were the
natural complemnet of each other. The eastern territory
was the richer in its natural resources, the western
in its agricultural development and busines experience.
The coal and oil and gas and ohter mineral products
that Oklahoma used came from Indian Territory. Railroad
building in recent years had been from east to west,
rather than parallel to the original trunk lines from
Kansas to Red river. All the tendencies of business
were towards linking the two territories into an inspeparable
alliance.
In the year 1906, then, it seemed that
all objections had been removed that had from time
to time been urged against the bestowal of statehood
upon these territories. Their population, their business
enterprise, their social status and their political
intelligence entitled them to this recognition. It
only remained for Congress to indicate the manner
in which it should be bestowed.
It would be a simple matter to describe
the giving of statehood to Oklahoma and Indian Territory,
had it involved only the preparation of the two territories
for the conditions which have been described. Perhaps
the wisdom of the nation's government would have found
no better proof, had the policy been firmly announced
at the beginning that the political destiny of the
two territories was joint statehood, and that each
must go through the full period of its peculiar economic
development before the sanction of Congress would
rest upon the proposed commonwealth. Such
337
|
338
a policy would no doubt have stimulated
all parties to persistent endeavor for the great goal.
In time, both territories would have completed their
novitiate, and the testing over, would have taken
their reward gratefully and pressed on to the higher
ends of an American commonwealth.
But, as the record of history shows,
the agitation for statehood continued for fifteen
years and involved in its discussions from time to
time, all the events in the history of the two territories
during that period. It requires only a reading of
the mass of material used in the various statehood
debates, memorials and congressional hearings, to
obtain a complete history of the territories during
these years. Furthermore, unfortunately, the movement
after a time became involved in the uncertainties
of partisan politics, and it will always remain to
the discredit of the general government that the admission
of Oklahoma was decided not alone on its merits but
as an issue between factions in Congress.
The first statehood convention was held
at Oklahoma City, December 15, 1891, a year and a
half after the organization of Oklahoma Territory.
Delegates were represent from the Oklahoma counties,
and part of the Indian Territory was also represented.
It was said to be non-partisan in composition and
action, and as a result of its discussions the first
statehood memorial1 was drawn up and presented
to Congress, praying for affirmative action on the
statehood bill which was to be introduced in the house
about that time by Delegate Harvey. A resolution
provided for an executive committee, of one member
from each county, to prepare an enabling act for the
admission of Oklahoma as a state, to include all of
the old Indian Territory. The members of the first
statehood executive committee were: Sidney
Clarke, Oklahoma county (elected chairman); W.
P. Hackey, Logan county; S. H. Harris,
Cleveland county; J. P. Cummins, Kingfisher
county; William J. Grant, Canadian county;
George F. Payne, Beaver county; W. M. Allison,
county A (Lincoln); J. H. Woods, county B (Pottawatomie),
and H. C. Potterf, Chickasaw county.
Following the instructions of the first
[Footnotes]
1Memorial Adopted at Statehood
Convention in Oklahoma City December 15, 1891
To the Congress of the
United States:
The people of Oklahoma Territory, without
distinction of party, assembled in convention at Oklahoma
City on December 15, 1891, hereby submit to the congress
of the United States the following statement of fact
relative to the condition of the territory and the
section of country occupied by the five civilized
tribes, and in behalf of the passage of an enabling
act providing for the admission of Oklahoma as a state.
That area of the old Indian Territory
comprises 68,991 square miles or 44,154,240 acres
of land;
That this area is exceeded by only fourteen
states of the Union, and that in fertility of soil
and in its capacity for agricultural and mineral production
is not excelled by any other section of the United
States;
That the committee on territories of
the house of representatives of the fifty-first Congress
reported that "excluding the full-blooded Indians
there are in the Indian Territory and Oklahoma about
247,000 people, who are either white or of mixed blood,
but who in personal appearance and in their habits
and customs and in their intelligence do not differ
materially from the people who inhabit other parts
of the United States.";
That since said report was made
the Indian title to more than 5,000,000 acres of land
in Oklahoma territory had been extinguished, and has
been opened and is about to be opened to settlement;
adding, with the increase of other sections, not less
than 50,000 to our population, and increasing the
sum total to about 300,000;
That the opening to settlement of other
lands in the near future will only be in rapidity
of settlement a repetition of settlements already
made, and that before the expiration of the present
Congress there will be in Oklahoma and Indian Territory
a population of half a million people;
That the population of Oklahoma territory
|
339
statehood convention, Delegate Harvey
introduced into the house a bill (H. R. 4629) "to
extend state lines around the Indian Territory."
Thus the first statehood bill considered in Congress
provided for single statehood, including the country
of the five civilized tribes as well as the territory
under territorial organization in Oklahoma. During
February, 1892, the committee on territories held
hearings on this bill, and before them appeared members
of the statehood executive committee, headed by Sidney
Clarke, and also several prominent citizens from
the Indian Territory side. The arguments proposed
in the resolutions of the Oklahoma City convention
were stated with varying degrees of emphasis by the
advocates of the bill. One of the principal speakers
in opposition was E. C. Boudinot, of the Cherokee
Nation, who maintained in the first place that the
extension of state lines around the country granted
to the five tribes by treaty could not be legally
done unless the Indians con-[sented]
[Footnotes]
proper by the federal census of 1890, before the opening
of the new lands, was 61,934, which exceeds the population
of either of the states of Illinois, Ohio, Nevada,
Oregon and Wyoming at the time they were admitted
as states, and that not a single territory, with the
exception of Washington and South Dakota, has had
a population equal to Oklahoma, with the five tribes
included, when admitted to the rights and privileges
of statehood;
That the rapid settlement and development
of Oklahoma has been exceptional. Cities have been
born in a day, and vast areas of the public domain
have been as speedily occupied by an industrious and
thriving population. A single year has witnessed more
development in Oklahoma than has taken place in any
other territory in a whole decade;
That in the interest of good government
all of the old Indian Territory should be included
in the future state of Oklahoma, and that by so doing
there will be no conflict with treaty stipulations
and no infringement upon the rights of property of
the Indian tribes;
That following the uniform precedents
established by Congress in the admission of states,
we favor the protection of the Indians in all their
legal and equitable rights under the treaties and
agreements. We believe, in the language of President
Harrison in his recent message, that "The
relation of the five civilized tribes now occupying
the Indian Territory to the United States . . . is
not best calculated to promote the highest advancement
of these Indians. That there should be within our
borders five independent states, having no relations
except those growing out of treaties with the government
of the United States, no representation in the nation's
legislation, its people not citizens, is a startling
anomaly." And we further agree with the president
that "it seems to be inevitable that there shall
be before long some organic changes in relation to
these people." We believe these changes should
come through statehood, citizenship, equitable laws,
home courts, prompt suppression of crime, and equal
representation;
That while we are at all times loyal
to the federal government, and fully recognize the
constitutional power of Congress to enact laws for
the government of the territories, we seek self-government
and home rule as a necessity for our full measure
of prosperity, and as a part of the pride and glory
of all patriotic citizens;
That here, as in other territories,
the divided jurisdiction between Congress and the
territorial legislature is an impediment to the investment
of capital, to the permanency of manufacturing and
business enterprises, and inefficient and unsatisfactory
in the protection of life and property;
That we have more than 1,000 miles of
railway now in operation, other lines in progress
of construction, and with the confidence that would
be assured by the passage of an enabling act by Congress
providing for the formation of a state government,
many more lines would be projected;
We therefore declare that, in view of
the extent of territory we ask to be included within
the geographical limits of the state of Oklahoma,
the number of our population, the variety and magnificence
of our material resources, the business, educational,
religious, and social conditions which exist here,
and the aggressive and enterprising character of our
people, the time has come for Congress to pass an
enabling act as herein indicated, and that at an early
day we should be permitted to throw off our territorial
pupilage and assume the dignity and responsibility
of a sovereign state.
J. P. LANE,
President of the Convention.
T. M. UPSHAW,
Secretary of the Convention.
|
340
[con]sented; and furthermore, that the
proposition of statehood for the five tribes was premature.
A reading of the arguments used before the committee
during the several weeks that the hearings were continued
shows that every phase of the Indian Territory problem
was discussed. So far as Oklahoma territory was concerned,
its claim for statehood became merely a matter of
statistics, as has always been generally true. It's
population, its taxable wealth, its railroads, its
agricultural and industrial development, its schools
and the capacity of its people for self-government,
were set forth in a manner that did not admit of dispute
as to the facts. And with each following year, when
the advocates of Oklahoma statehood appeared before
Congress, they summoned practically the same substantial
facts to support their cause, the only difference
being that with each year Oklahoma became larger in
area, stronger in population and development, and
better fitted for the responsibilities it desired
to assume.
With Indian Territory the case was different.
Mr. Boudinot's assertion, before the committee
in 1892, that the treaty guarantees stood in the way
of statehood and that the Indians themselves were
not yet prepared for such a change, summed up the
argument against joining Indian Territory with Oklahoma.
For nearly fifteen years following, the energies of
the government were directed towards solving the very
problems presented by Boudinot's objections.
And not until the consent of the five tribes was obtained,
and only after the Dawes Commission had labored many
years for the dissolution of the tribal system and
the preparation of the Indians for living according
to the white man's laws and customs, did Congress
give statehood for the Indian country.
At the inter-territorial statehood convention
held at Purcell, September 30, 1893, the memorial
to Congress asked, 1st, that the five petty sovereignties
known as the five civilized tribes of the Indian Territory,
existing by right of treaty, be summarily abolished;
2d, that the lands held by federal patent in common
by the Cherokees, Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws and
Chickasaws, be allotted in equal pro rata severalty,
with proper reservations, to the bona fide citizens
of the aforesaid Indian governments; and, 3d, that
the domain occupied by them be made to form a part
of a commonwealth of the American union.
The arguments to support this request
may be summarized briefly: In the five tribes were
70,000 Indian citizens and 150,000 United States citizens.
Three-fourths of the former were of mixed white blood.
The value of the Indian school property was estimated
at $800,000, and $350,000 was expended annually to
support the Indian schools. Education for the non-citizen
whites depended on private contributions, resulting
in injurious discrimination between the two classes
of inhabitants. The expense of maintaining the tribal
government, to which less than a third of the residents
claimed allegiance, largely exceeded the expense of
maintaining an honest state government for both Indian
Territory and Oklahoma. Taxation in Indian Territory
was inequitable. "The full-blood Indian, with
an acre of corn, and the owner of but one pony, pays
the same tax to support his government as does the
intermarried white who farms thousands of acres and
pastures tens of thousand cattle." Besides, the
non-citizens had to pay the tribal government's personal
taxes for the privilege of residence and for all merchandise
sold and business transacted in the country. The real
Indian profited little by
|
341
the tribal government. A large share
of his annuities fell into the hands of preying wolves,
"within and out of the fold, who rob them coming
and going," while white landlords with tribal
rights obtained through marriage controlled the best
lands and had "fenced the full-bloods off upon
the discarded and worthless lands." The tribal
governments "are more oligarchies for self-aggrandizement
and public spoliation." Five conflicting court
jurisdictions fostered crime and made justice a travesty.
The white non-citizens, the wealth-producers of the
territory, were subjected to oppressive regulations
by the tribal governments, and the restriction of
leases to annual periods mad permanent progress impossible
and all property rights insecure. "We have no
asylums for our insane; no institutions of charity
and philanthropy; no penitentiaries for the confinement
of our criminals; no relief for the multitudinous
public burdens which should properly be borne by the
state."
Following the Purcell convention, one
was held at Kingfisher, November 28, 1893, representing
Oklahoma and parts of Indian Territory. Soon after
the assembling of Congress in December, 1893, a bill
(H. R. 4857) was introduced to enable the people of
Oklahoma to form a constitution and state government.
This was an Oklahoma bill, providing for statehood
for this territory without reference to Indian Territory.
General Wheeler, of Alabama, reported the bill
from the committee on the territories, December 20,
with strong recommendations that it be passed. This
and other house bills, that in successive sessions
were persistently urged for passage in the house,
were consigned to oblivion in the senate committee.
During 1894, before a senate sub-committee, exhaustive
hearings were taken on the bill, and the record of
these hearings is a complete review of conditions
in both territories.
The Oklahoma statehood delegation returned
to Washington year after year, and there was no let
up to the agitation from that side. It has been said
that when Oklahomans had no other diversion they called
a statehood convention. Such conventions were held,
from time to time, in all the principal towns of the
territory, and each one supplied its statehood committee
with a fresh lot of argument to reinforce that used
before.
Ten years passed before the statehood
movement had any promise of success. In the meantime
more immediate problems were pressing for solution.
In Indian Territory the efforts of the Dawes Commission
ere unavailing until the Curtis Act of 1898, and a
vast amount of negotiation and administrative work
followed before that territory could be brought into
a condition to receive statehood. In Oklahoma, during
the financial panic of the early nineties, and as
a result of crop failures, the settlers had experienced
difficulties in paying for their lands, and the mass
of the population were poor and struggling. Of greater
importance to them than statehood was the movement
which became a local political issue in the campaign
of 1896, to relieve the settlers of their remaining
payments on homesteads. This was the "free homes"
legislation that was urged before Congress for several
successive sessions, the champion of which was Delegate
Flynn.2 It finally became a law,
with results that were described as follows: "Savings
that had been laid away to make the payments (on homesteads)
were suddenly a surplus, and the effect has been seen
in additions to the houses, new buggies, and
[Footnotes]
2See sketch of Dennis Flynn.
|
342
trips to the old eastern homes. It [the
bill] has given the first good hearty breathing spell
enjoyed by thousands of families since the opening."
In 1899 a bill passed both houses of
the Oklahoma legislature calling a convention to form
a state constitution for Oklahoma and providing that
the Indian Territory should be added to the state
by piecemeal. This bill was vetoed by Governor Barnes,
for the following reasons: "The recent action
of Congress refusing to ratify treaties with the Cherokees
and Creeks, pledging the United States to a policy
of continued separation of the two territories, is
significant to the thoughtful mind and indicates a
well settled and determined purpose in the minds of
senators and representatives never to admit Indian
Territory and Oklahoma as two states. And I feel sure
that the ultimate destiny of the two territories is
that of single statehood. This being true, to hold
a constitutional convention at this time, to form
a constitution for Oklahoma upon the lines laid down
in this bill, would not advance the matter in the
slightest degree, but, on the contrary, would retard
and hinder the growth of healthful political sentiment
in the Indian Territory in favor of such union."
This brings to notice a very important
phase of the statehood movement. For several years
a large support was given to the proposal that Congress
legislate for Oklahoma statehood alone, with a provision
similar to that contained in the territorial organic
act that Indian Territory should be added to the state
as soon as it was prepared for that condition. Undoubtedly
such a course would have been to the advantage of
Guthrie and Oklahoma politicians, since by the admission
of Oklahoma alone and the subsequent piecemeal absorption
of Indian Territory, the center of government and
political power would have remained on the Oklahoma
side, and presumably about Guthrie as the capital.
But no doubt there were more praiseworthy motives
behind this proposal. Evidently persuaded that the
destiny of the two territories was joint statehood,
and wearied by the futile efforts to obtain any kind
of enabling act, the statehood agitators hoped by
proposing a new solution of the question to hasten
the day when Oklahoma should enter the Union, unimpeded
by the slow progress of the Dawes Commission on the
eastern side.
It would be impossible to state the
exact proportion of public opinion in each of the
territories for or against statehood, either separate
or joint. In Oklahoma territory, beginning with the
time when the question of statehood got into the larger
realm of national politics, the local interests were
complicated with the political phases of the matter,
and opinion divided in most unexpected ways. At first,
while the movement was under way to admit Oklahoma
with the later addition of Indian Territory, the Republican
party was committed to this form of single statehood,
since, they reasoned, Oklahoma alone would be a Republican
state. Guthrie, of course, being the center of the
dominant party at the time, gave its support to this.
On the other hand, Oklahoma City, as the business
center, with its interests closely related to Indian
Territory, favored the single state idea without any
considerations. At the same time the Democratic party
in Congress, foreseeing in double statehood the addition
of two Democratic states, naturally contended for
the separate admission of the two territories. In
this way, after statehood agitation had taken on a
political aspect, unanimity of opinion became impossible,
and from that time forward partisan
|
343
discussion marked every step in the
movement. On the Indian Territory side, interests
were equally at variance. So far as those principally
interested were concerned—the five tribes—a
definite expression of opinion would have been hard
to obtain. Their affairs were just then undergoing
reorganization and their political status was of less
moment than the more immediate material concerns.
As to the large body of whites, they were divided
on the issue, though, the majority being Democrats,
their preferences were expressed for the measures
advocated by that party.
As a result of the effort to get statehood
for Oklahoma alone, along the lines indicated by the
action of the Oklahoma legislature above noticed,
Delegate Flynn had introduced a bill in the
house, and continued his support of this legislation
until Oklahoma statehood became involved with the
fortunes of Arizona and New Mexico. This gave an entirely
new turn to the movement, and from that time forward
these two southwestern territories clogged every step
in the progress of Oklahoma toward statehood. Senator
Quay, of Pennsylvania, was the astute congressional
leader who henceforth took command and held the fate
of the four territories in his hands until death removed
him from the arena of one of the most spectacular
struggles ever witnessed in the halls of Congress.
Senator Quay represented the interests that
were supporting separate statehood for Arizona and
New Mexico. Those territories, especially New Mexico,
had been seeking admittance to the Union for half
a century. It is not necessary to state the grounds
on which statehood had been withheld. It had been
proposed, and a strong sentiment had developed in
Congress in its favor, to united these territories
as one state. But, as subsequent events proved, the
corporate and other influences behind the movement
that had Quay's support were directed to separate
statehood, and all the political power and able generalship
of the Pennsylvania senator were employed to bring
about that result. Facing defeat so long as these
territories alone were involved, he very shrewdly
united the statehood forces of all four territories
in support of the "ominibus bill, which had passed
the house, providing that Oklahoma, New Mexico and
Arizona should at the same time and under one act
enter the union of states. It was a clever plan, and
all but succeeded. In previous years the senate had
been the tomb of all Oklahoma statehood bills. But
with such a leader as Quay, whose influence
in the senate at that time was second to none, the
success of the "omnibus bill" seemed assured,
and the Oklahomans quickly rallied to its support.
This was the situation at the beginning
of the fifty-seventh Congress, in 1901-02. In the
meantime, on November 12, 1901, a convention had been
held in Indian Territory, at Muskogee, representing
presumably the interests of that section of the statehood
question. The convention declared for joint statehood
for the two territories, and Thomas H. Doyle
was chairman of the delegation selected at this convention
to present the subject to Congress. He assisted in
the drawing of the bill which was presented in the
house by Mr. Stephens, of Texas (known as the
Stephens' statehood bill) and of a similar bill which
Mr. Patterson introduced into the senate (known
as the Patterson bill). These bills provided for joint
statehood, and were in line with the memorial of the
Oklahoma legislature, approved in March, 1901, demanding
the union of the two territories
|
344
as one state. An opposite course of
legislation was demanded, in bills then pending before
the national house and senate, in what was known as
the "omnibus bill" (what was known as the
Flynn bill was identical with the latter), asking
for separate statehood for each of the four territories
of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Indian Territory.3
At the non-partisan single-statehood
convention, held in Oklahoma City in January, 1902,
said to have been the largest ever held in either
territory, some of the resolutions adopted will indicate
the trend of opinion and the principal arguments used
at that time.
"We, the people of Oklahoma and
Indian Territory, in convention assembled confident
that organic union is our manifest destiny, again
proclaim to the Congress that we favor the creation
of a single state out of the area now embraced within
both of these territories, and we offer the following
reasons in support of our position:
"First. Oklahoma's area is 39,000
square miles; that of Indian Territory only 31,000
square miles. The average area of the states and territories
west of the Mississippi is more than 100,000 square
miles, while that of Texas, our next-door neighbor,
is 265,000. Our combined area will make a state less
than 70 per cent of the
[Footnotes]
3The prospect of success
for the statehood movement in 1902 aroused opposition
among the Indians of the five tribes. It was claimed
that the Indian lobby always present at Washington
as a counter-check upon the statehood agitators was
supported by certain powerful interests that had much
at stake in retaining the territory as it was. However,
the protest submitted through the interior department
to the senate in December, 1902, presents very convincing
arguments against statehood for the eastern territory
at that time. The protest is an important document
in the history of statehood, and follows:
"WHEREAS, The five civilized tribes
of the Indian Territory have by agreements made. .
. . with the United States provided for the dissolution
of their tribal governments; and
"WHEREAS, The changed conditions
brought about by such agreements require a complete
revolution in our land tenure, and new laws and usages
unknown to the Indians composing the five tribes of
the Indian Territory, which conditions will require
time for the Indians to adapt themselves to the changed
order of things; and
"WHEREAS, These changes were apparent
to the contracting parties at the time of the making
of said agreements, which is evidenced by the fact
that a separate political organization was provided
for the Indian Territory, and the period for the dissolution
of said tribal governments was fixed at March 4, 1906;
and
"WHEREAS, Citizens of the United
States, and not Indians, now resident upon the lands
of the five tribes, are making petition and lobby
influence efforts to induce the Congress of the United
States to ignore the letter and spirit of these agreements
by placing the Indian Territory under the laws of
Oklahoma Territory; failing in that, to organize a
United States territory out the present judicial organization
known as the Indian Territory, either of which propositions
would delay the work of the government as now organized
and satisfactorily proceeding under the direction
of the secretary of the interior for the fulfillment
of the agreements referred to: Now, therefore,
be it
"Resolved, By the duly authorized
representatives of the five civilized tribes in convention
assembled at Eufaula, Creek Nation, Ind. T., November
28, 1902: . . .
"We are opposed to and protest
against any legislation by Congress that contemplates
the annexation of the Indian Territory, or any part
thereof, to the territory of Oklahoma, or to any state;
and we insist upon our tribal governments continuing
intact and our tribal conditions remaining unchanged
until March 4, 1906, at which time, should Congress
deem it wise, we ask that a state be formed out of
the territory composing Indian Territory without the
preliminary steps of a territorial form of government."
The protestants further declared that
the regulations prescribed by the interior department
were sufficient government until the dissolution of
the tribes, in preparation for which event the people
should, at the proper time, take steps to establish
a state form of government. But in the meantime, it
was claimed, those individuals and organizations in
Indian Territory asking for a territorial form of
government or joint statehood with Oklahoma, did not
represent the Indian population and only a small part
of the white people.
|
345
size of the average western state, while
taken separately we will be the two Rhode Islands
of the west.
"Second. The resources of
the two territories complement each other. Oklahoma
is almost wholly agricultural, while the Indian Territory
is richly endowed with mineral wealth, and the combination
will make a state of unsurpassed variety and abundance
of natural resources.
"Third. Single statehood
insures larger taxable values and consequently lower
taxation.
"Fourth. Single statehood
eliminates a crooked, wandering and fantastic boundary
line, which now divides the two territories.
"Fifth. Single statehood
confirms and cements a social fellowship already established
by inter-territorial organizations of the Methodist
Episcopal Church South, the Methodist Episcopal Church,
the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the
federation of Woman's Clubs, the Mason and other fraternities.
"Sixth. Single statehood
confirms and cements a business fellowship already
established by inter-territorial organizations of
the cotton-seed oil manufacturers, the lumber dealers,
the ice manufacturers, the grain dealers, the flour
manufacturers and other business organizations.
"Seventh. Single statehood,
finally, insures a state which will take high rank
in this Union, and which we can bequeath to our posterity
with pride and satisfaction."
As to the unsettled condition
of Indian affairs in Indian Territory interfering
with immediate joint statehood, the convention expressed
itself as follows:
"The work of the Dawes Commission
has been so nearly completed as to no longer interfere
with immediate statehood; that commission has concluded
treaties with all the Indian tribes, providing for
the allotment in severalty of their lands, and authorizing
the sale of all except the homestead. These allotments
will probably be completed by the time a state government
can be organized. The lands of the Creek and Seminole
nations have all been allotted. In the Cherokee, Choctaw
and Chickasaw nations the lands have all been surveyed
and classified, and the work of allotment is now simply
clerical and should be completed within twelve months.
. . . . It therefore is beyond controversy that the
work of the Dawes Commission no longer interferes
with statehood, and that there is abundance of taxable
property."
"Congress can reserve such power
over Indian affairs as it desires, and statehood will
in no way interfere with the free action of the interior
department in carrying out all the treaties between
the government and the several tribes.
During the first session of the fifty-seventh
Congress, in 1901-02, the house committee on the territories
had under consideration nine bills providing for the
creation of states. There was an enabling act for
New Mexico alone, one for Oklahoma alone, one for
Arizona alone, one "to authorize single statehood
for Oklahoma and Indian territories as the state of
Oklahoma"; a similar bill for the "union
of Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory";
another giving statehood to Oklahoma alone, and final
a bill (H. R. 12543) "to enable the people of
Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico to form constitutions
and state governments and be admitted into the Union,"
which Mr. Knox, on April 1, 1902, reported
with a recommendation to pass. In the third section
of the last-named bill it was provided that the constitutional
convention should, "by an irrevocable ordinance,"
express the consent of the state of Oklahoma that
Congress might at any time, or from time to time,
attach all or any part of the Indian Territory to
the state of Oklahoma.
A senate bill, with similar provisions
to
|
346
those just mentioned, had been introduced
during this session by Senator Quay. The house
bill having been passed, no opposition was expected
to the measure, there being a combination of Republicans
under Quay's leadership and practically all
the Democrats, sufficiently strong to pass the bill
when it came to vote. The bill was referred to the
committee on the territories, of which Senator Quay
was a member. The chairman of the committee was Albert
J. Beveridge, of Indiana. Up to this time he had
taken little part in the movement for statehood. But
during the examination of the bill in committee he
suddenly manifested extreme interest in the matter,
and, instead of the bill receiving a perfunctory consideration
and a favorable report to the senate, the young senator's
inquiries had probed so deeply into the interests
supporting the measure that he refused to report it
out of committee. From that time on Beveridge
was the stumbling block of the "omnibus bill."
He swayed the majority of the committee and, despite
all that the astute Quay could do, the bill
remained with the committee. It developed during the
committee's hearing, so it is alleged, that certain
railroad and corporation influences were backing the
design to bring Arizona and New Mexico into the Union,
and that it was not altogether a popular movement
in the territories concerned. But just what the reasons
were that caused Senator Beveridge's opposition
are not important to this discussion. The essential
fact is that he held the bill in committee, against
all the influences brought to bear upon him. On June
23, 1902, Senator Quay moved in open senate
to discharge the committee, which would have brought
the bill before the whole senate, where he had a majority
to insure its passage. The vote on his motion resulted
in a tie, and adjournment of Congress being at hand,
it was finally agreed that the bill should be reported
on the following December 10, and be considered in
the senate as unfinished business until disposed of.
This was apparently a victory for Quay, since
there was little doubt that he could hold his organization
together until the reassembling of Congress.
Before adjournment Senator Beveridge
secured the passage of a resolution that a sub-committee
of the committee on territories should visit the territories
during the congressional recess, and on the evidence
obtained a base report as to the preparedness of the
territories for statehood. This sub-committee, consisting
of Senators Beveridge, Dillingham, Burnham
and Heitfeld, reached New Mexico about the
middle of November, and during the following three
weeks journeyed rapidly over the four territories,
holding hearings in the principal towns or in their
car as they sped along. Much criticism was directed
against the superficial character of their examination
and the haste with which the "junketing party"
hurried over the vast area of the four territories.
The senators stopped at only three or four towns in
Oklahoma and Indian Territory, barely three hours
being devoted to the examination of witnesses in Oklahoma
City. None the less, the committee gathered a voluminous
amount of information from representative citizens
in all the territories, and when printed it became
the basis for the subsequent action of Congress.
Mr. Beveridge, for the committee
on territories, on December 3, 1902, reported back
the house bill 12543 (the omnibus measure) with an
amendment striking out all after the enacting clause
and inserting instead a bill for the admission of
Oklahoma and Indian Territory as a single
|
347
state, entirely ignoring New Mexico
and Arizona. On December 10 a report was submitted
by Mr. Beveridge supporting this action. At
the same time Senator Quay presented an individual
report in dissent from the views of the majority of
the committee, his arguments being summed up in the
concluding sentences of his report as follows: "For
the reasons, therefore, that the Republican party
in 1900 promised statehood to the territories of Arizona,
New Mexico and Oklahoma, while no such pledge or promise
was made in the national convention for the Indian
Territory, which is not now fit for statehood, and
that these territories compare favorably in number
and character of population, as well as in resources
and territorial extent, with nearly all of the states
admitted to the Union for many years past, and, in
accordance with the precedents of our history, I recommend
that house bill No. 12543 be passed without amendment."
On December 15 a minority report, presented by Senator
Bate, was submitted, following substantially
the views of Mr. Quay.
The substance of the Beveridge,
or majority, report deserves a place in this history.
After presenting the reasons of the majority of the
committee for opposing the entrance to the Union of
Arizona and New Mexico, it calls the attention in
striking contrast to "the preparedness of Oklahoma
and Indian Territory," the great body of the
former territory being magnificently developed, while
the less that 87,000 Indians in the latter were being
rapidly brought into a condition for absorption "in
the body of our homogenous citizenship." But
the proposition to admit Oklahoma territory as a single
state was not tenable. "Its size is much below
that of any western state. . . . Its boundaries are
unscientific, accidental and grotesque. And, above
all, the committee are convinced that a majority of
its people are opposed to statehood at present except
by a union with its natural complement, the Indian
Territory." Attention is called to the union
of the territories by nature, commerce and "all
human conditions." As to the exemption of Indian
lands from taxation and consequent burdens placed
upon the Oklahoma side, it is argued that in two or
three years at most Indian Territory could bear a
proportionate share of public taxation, and that the
inequity complained of was comparatively insignificant.
As to the arguments advanced by opponents of statehood
that the citizens of Oklahoma are highly prosperous
in their territorial condition, and that under a state
government they might be subjected to burdensome taxation
and reckless obligations in behalf of railroads and
other improvements, the committee admits the force
of such reasoning. But, it concludes, "it seems
to the committee that these two territories should
be admitted to the Union as a single state. They have
reached their manhood and should take on manhood's
responsibilities. They do not need incorporation into
the active political nation more than the active political
nation needs them."
In November, 1902, the matter of joint
or double statehood was an issue in the Oklahoma territorial
election. The Democratic platform declared specifically
for single, meaning joint, statehood. The Republican
platform endorsed the Flynn bill, granting statehood
to Oklahoma and giving Congress power to attach Indian
Territory at some future time. The Republican candidate
(McGuire) construed this as a single statehood
declaration, and contended that it was the speedier
way of procuring statehood. Notwithstanding this construction,
the single statehood sentiment
|
348
reduced the Republican plurality from
4,724 to 384.
With the reporting of the "omnibus
bill" to the senate, accompanied by the recommendations
of the majority and the minority in the territorial
committee, the contest which had begun during the
previous session within the committee room was transferred
to the more conspicuous stage of the open senate.
There, during the following three months, was enacted
one of the most prolonged "filibusters"
in the history of our national legislature. Senator
Quay with about a dozen Republican adherents
was united with the Democratic minority in support
of the bill. Opposed to them were Senator Beveridge
and most of the Republican members, with several Democratic
senators. Should the bill come to a vote, its supporters
possessed enough strength to pass it. But by the ancient
right of "senatorial courtesy" and the freedom
of unlimited debate, the opponents of the bill could
delay the vote as long as they could talk, and Senator
Beveridge determined to "talk the bill
to death."
The filibuster against the statehood
bill was thus described by a Washington correspondent
(January 12, 1903):
"The debate on the statehood bill
has now been running three weeks, and according to
Senator Beveridge has just begun. He says that
thirty-one senators expect to speak. Senator Nelson,
of Minnesota, has been speaking for five days in succession
in a dreary monotone to empty benches. The only members
of the senate who have listened to him have been Senator
Quay, representing one side, and Senator Beveridge,
representing the other side of the controversy, and
they have been relieved from time to time by some
other colleagues because it is necessary to keep a
sentinel on guard. From 2 to 5 o'clock daily Senator
Nelson continues to read from the testimony
taken by the subcommittee on territories which investigated
the subject; from arguments submitted for the admission
of Oklahoma and Indian Territory and against the admission
of New Mexico and Arizona; from books, newspapers,
magazines and other miscellaneous literature bearing
on the subject, and he calls it a speech.
"When he is tired out, Senator
Burnham or Senator Dillingham will take
the job, and Mr. Bard, of California, is loaded
with material and can take the floor at any time it
is necessary. Senator Nelson is not to blame,
however, for his part in this tiresome farce. He has
been selected by the committee on territories to filibuster
against the passage of the statehood bill by killing
time, and the other senators named have engaged in
the same ignoble conspiracy.
"Why? If they should stop speaking
Senator Quay would demand a vote, and he has the majority
of the senate behind him in favor of the bill admitting
New Mexico and Arizona. He has announced that he will
permit no other legislation except the regular appropriation
bills to be considered until the statehood bill is
disposed of."
The deadlock went on for weeks. The
short session was nearing an end, important legislation
was pressing for attention, the president threatened
to call an extra session after March 4th, but Quay
and his lieutenants remained obdurate. On January
21st Senator Quay had an opportunity to display
his strength. While the statehood debate was in progress,
a motion was made to go into executive session to
consider Cuban reciprocity. It was recognized as a
test of the forces aligned for and against the omnibus
measure. Senator
|
349
Quay permitted the vote to be
taken, a roll call being demanded, and the motion
lost, eleven Republican senators joining Quay
and his almost solid Democratic support to defeat
the motion.
Other expedients were adopted by the
shrewd Pennsylvania senator. The "omnibus"
bill was attached in committee as a "rider"
to the postoffice and agriculture appropriation bills,
which, being urgent measures, it was believed might
overcome the filibuster. Later Quay joined
with Senator Morgan, the aged but persistent
opponent of the Panama canal, and thus started another
filibuster, hoping his pet measure might profit thereby.
But in the last days of the session
the Quay organization showed signs of disintegrating.
A compromise, on the basis of two states being formed
from the territories instead of four, was acceptable
to Mr. Quay, but not to the Democratic senators,
who continued their efforts for four states. As the
close of the session approached it became evident
that a vote on the bill could not be reached, and
that the omnibus "riders" might endanger
the passage of the appropriation bills. They were
therefore withdrawn by Mr. Quay, and the regular
business of the senate resumed.
The filibuster had accomplished its
purpose, and one of the most dramatic chapters in
the history of the United States senate closed, without
the cause of Oklahoma statehood having been advanced
beyond the stage of partisan politics and unlimited
discussion.
The fifty-seventh Congress expired on
March 4, 1903, and the "omnibus bill" died
with it. In the fifty-eighth Congress, which convened
in December, 1903, and held over till March, 1905,
no substantial progress was affected. Following the
lines of the enabling legislation proposed by the
Beveridge committee in the preceding Congress,
a bill was introduced in the house by Congressman
Hamilton, providing for the union of the adjacent
territories and the creation of the two new states
of Oklahoma and Arizona. The bill passed the house
but was defeated in the senate, largely by the combination
which had previously supported the "omnibus bill."
(Senator Quay had died in the meantime.) In
the closing days of the fifty-eighth Congress, while
the senate had under consideration the house bill
(14,749) to enable the four territories to enter the
union as two states, Senator Beveridge in his
speech closing the debate said, as to the change of
sentiment regarding statehood with the last two years:
"Two years ago the
majority of the committee on territories brought into
the senate as a substitute for the then pending measure
a bill uniting Indian Territory and Oklahoma. At the
time that thought was presented it found chill reception
in this body. It was resisted by most of the politicians
both in the Indian Territory and in Oklahoma, and
the country received it with indifference. Two years
have passed. Nothing has been done in its behalf.
No propaganda has been conducted to further that idea.
It has depended only upon its own vitality. But the
idea was lodged in the minds of the people of those
two territories, and it has grown until it has formed
an irresistible power, so that the people of these
territories themselves today are a unit upon this
question, and the politicians there, in obedience
to the universal public demand have also agreed upon
it.
"Not only that, but the idea of
single statehood captured the country, and I hold
here in my hand editorials from papers all over the
nation advocating this course, regardless of party.
In addition, the idea has grown until in this body
itself it receives almost the overwhelming approval
of senators. And now we are to have a single magnificent
state made by the re-[union]
|
350
[re]union of these two territories,
a commonwealth unsurpassed in the Republic in generous
resources, delightful climate, and a splendid citizenship—for
such is the greater Oklahoma for which this bill provides
and the only Oklahoma that is possible to be a state."
It is now necessary to
turn from Washington to the situation in Oklahoma
and Indian Territory. On July 12, 1905, a statehood
convention, made up of five hundred delegates from
the Indian Territory and an equal number from Oklahoma
territory, assembled at Oklahoma City. They declared
in resolutions that they had but one petition to make
to Congress, and that was "that immediate joint
statehood be granted to Oklahoma and Indian territories,
on their own merits, and without reference to any
right or claim of other territories seeking admission
to the American Union."
Almost at the same time that the joint
statehood convention was passing resolutions for a
single state at Oklahoma City, in July, 1905, a call
for a separate statehood convention had been sent
out by some of the principal chiefs and prominent
Indians of the Indian Territory. It was held that
in view of the passing of the tribal system of government
with the following 4th of March, that immediate measures
were necessary to provide for a government of Indian
country. Therefore a constitutional convention was
called to convene at Muskogee on August 21, 1905,
for the purpose of drafting a constitution and selecting
a capital and name for the new state. The first call
was signed by only two chiefs, but was later somewhat
modified and signed by representatives of all the
five nations.4 At this convention, which
met in Muskogee, August 21st, 182 delegates were entitled
to seats, though only 150 were actually present. D.
C. McCurtain was temporary chairman, and the regular
organization was presided over by Pleasant Porter,
with C. N. Haskell as vice-president, and Alexander
Posey secretary. After the organization had been
completed and all committees appointed, the convention
was given a recess until September 5th, when the work
of the constitutional committee was reported and revised.
The convention laid out its work in a methodical manner,
and labored industriously for several weeks, and after
de-[bating]
[Footnotes]
4We, the chief executives
of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole and Creek nations,
have in conference agreed to carry out the call for
a constitutional convention made by the principal
chief of the Choctaw nation and the principal chief
of the Cherokee nation, for August 21, 1905, as being
adequate and binding upon all the nations under their
compact to convene at the call of the chief executives
of the nation wherein the recording town is located.
The original call for this convention is hereby modified
and extended as follows:
On or before the 5th day of August each
chief executive in jurisdiction as above specified
will designate such persons as he deem proper to act
as presiding officer of said mass meeting for the
selection of such delegates and alternates.
If, for any reason, such presiding officer
should not appear and preside, then the meeting is
authorized to fill the vacancy. A list of the delegates
and alternates selected at such meetings shall at
once be certified by the chairman to the chief executives
of such nations and such certificates thereupon being
endorsed by said chief executives shall constitute
credentials necessary to entitle such delegates and
alternates to membership in the constitutional convention
to be held August 21, 1905. The convention when assembled
shall have full power to direct its subsequent proceedings.
W. C. ROGERS,
Prin. Chief Cherokee Nation.
GREEN McCURTAIN,
Prin. Chief Choctaw Nation.
P. PORTER,
Prin. Chief Creek Nation.
J. F. BROWN,
Prin. Chief Seminole Nation.
GEO. W. SCOTT,
Secretary, Kinta
|
351
[de]bating the provisions of the constitution
in full convention, adopted what has been known as
"the Sequoyah constitution," the name of
the famous Cherokee having been proposed for the new
state. The convention nominated four members (two
Republicans and two Democrats) to go to Washington
and work for the admission of the state of Sequoyah
under it proposed constitution; it declared in favor
of statehood for Indian Territory separate from Oklahoma,
and submitted the whole to the people of Indian Territory
to be voted on, November 7, 1905—the first general
election ever held in the Indian Territory. Many people,
while opposing separate statehood for Indian Territory,
were convinced that the results of the Sequoyah convention
would be beneficial. Hitherto, in a political sense,
the position of Indian Territory had been anomalous,
without power of concerted expression or action in
political matters. It was feared by many that Indian
Territory, if joined to Oklahoma in a single state,
would be a mere tool in the hands of the more experienced
political leaders from the western side, and that
the Oklahoma clique would dominate affairs greatly
to the neglect and injury of Indian Territory. But
the action of the people of Indian Territory at Muskogee
furnished a powerful argument in demonstrating their
fitness for statehood, whether separate or joint statehood.
The convention had take a step toward statehood far
in advance of anything done or attempted by the people
of Oklahoma; and, as was asserted at the time, "if
these people must go into a constitutional convention
with Oklahoma, they have demonstrated their right
to demand equal terms with her." "Indian
Territory," to quote an article written at the
time, "with a population equal to Oklahoma, is
vastly richer in resources, of which many—notably
oil, gas, coal and asphalt—are being turned into
commercial channels to the extent of many millions
annually. It contains unknown wealth of granite and
marble, lead, zinc and other minerals; its agricultural
output and its taxable property are both greater than
those of Oklahoma. The people of Indian Territory
revolt at the idea of uniting in statehood with a
community which may levy tribute upon their vast wealth
of resources for the maintenance of state institutions
where they are now located in Oklahoma."
The campaign that preceded the vote
upon the constitution served to educate the people
to the importance of the statehood movement. The matter
was complicated by partisan politics, and by the joint
statehood issue, and perhaps the chief result, as
viewed from the present, was the union of the political
leaders of the Indian Territory in an efficient working
organization which, when the enabling act finally
passed, became a powerful factor in the politics of
the new state. The campaign before the election was
thus described by a writer in the Outlook,
in March, 1906: "The opposition both in Indian
Territory and Oklahoma answered that it [the separate
statehood movement] was an appeal to sentiment; that
the administration is opposed to the policy; that
Congress will not admit two states made out of the
two territories, and that there is no use contending
for it; and through the newspapers, of which the opposition
controls a majority in Indian Territory, it reproduced
numerous interviews and letters of senators and congressmen
committing themselves in advance of the meeting of
Congress, to joint statehood and discouraging the
separate statehood idea; and it employed every possible
argument to persuade the voters to stay away
|
252
from the polls on November 7.5
Yet the result of the election that day, as announced
by the election board upon the sworn returns of the
election judges, was 56,279 votes for separate statehood
and the constitution, and 9,073 votes against. Without
election machinery, without rival candidates to stimulate
voters, and with no revenues to defray the expenses
of such an election, a total vote of 65,352 votes
cast is significant of a deep interest in the question
by the people of Indian Territory."
In the final solution of the statehood
question, after politics and public and private interests
had caused a vacillation continuing for years between
the advocacy of separate statehood and of joint statehood,
Congress settled the matter not so much in deference
to the wishes of the territories concerned, but in
consideration of the national rights and interests
involved. The conviction had been gaining ground in
the country at large that the question whether any
territory shall be admitted as a state and how it
shall be admitted was one to be determined primarily
by the nation, not primarily by the people of the
territory; that Congress had both a constitutional
and a moral right to determine whether such a territory
would be divided into two or more states, or whether
two or more territories should be united as one state.
In the closing arguments on the statehood bill as
it finally passed, Senator Beveridge, referring
to this aspect of the question, said: "The senator
from Colorado says, as thought it were a noteworthy
fact, that the idea of joint statehood did not originate
with the people of either territory. Why should it?
Statehood is not a question to be settled by the people
of the territories alone; it is a question for the
nation to settle. It is not a local matter only; it
is a national matter. It is not merely a temporary
arrangement for the benefit alone of the people living
in those territories; it is a permanent arrangement
which fixes their relation and that of their posterity
to all the multiplying millions who shall live in
this Republic till the end of time."
At the opening of the first session
of the fifth-ninth [fifty-ninth] Congress, in December,
1905, the solution of the statehood question, so far
as the public opinion of the country at large and
the action of Congress were concerned, had been determined.
In his message President Roosevelt said:
"I recommend that
Indian Territory and Oklahoma be admitted as one state,
and that New Mexico and Arizona be admitted
[Footnotes]
5The Sequoyah movement was
the subject of the following criticism from Delegate
McGuire in a speech in the house, in January,
1906, during the progress of the final debates on
the omnibus statehood bill: "There has been urged
against this statehood bill as a reason why it should
not become a law, that the people of Oklahoma and
the people of Indian Territory desire another form
of statehood. There has been something said about
the state of Sequoyah, and an election recently held
for the purpose of adopting a constitution for the
proposed state of Sequoyah, including the Indian Territory
and nothing more. The real purpose of the convention
which resulted in this movement, and the effort for
the state of Sequoyah, in my judgment, was not altogether
sincere. There is a strong element in the Indian Territory,
and a most dangerous element, too, to civilized tendencies,
so far as the Indian is concerned, which is most strenuously
opposed to any kind of statehood, whether it be single
or double, whether it be statehood for Oklahoma or
the Indian Territory. Sometimes the tactics pursued
by these people are one thing, and sometimes another.
First they contend that the Indian of the Indian Territory
is not prepared for statehood; not sufficiently civilized
to cope in business and other matters with his white
neighbor. Other times they call a convention and inaugurate
the Sequoyah movement, or some other movement, the
real purpose of which is not to assist the Indian
Territory to statehood, but to throw every possible
impediment and obstruction in the way of statehood
of any kind or character."
|
353
as one state. There is no obligation
upon us to treat territorial subdivision, which are
matters of convention only, as binding us in the question
of admission to statehood. Nothing has taken up more
time in the Congress during the past few years than
the question as to the statehood to be granted to
the four territories above mentioned, and, after careful
consideration of all that has been developed in the
discussion of the question, I recommend that they
be immediately admitted as two states. There is no
justification for further delay, and the advisability
of making four territories into two states has been
clearly established."
It was in accordance with
this recommendation that Congress acted. No substantial
opposition was directed against the proposal to unite
Oklahoma and the Indian Territory, but the disposition
of the four territories being still considered together,
the hostility of the powerful lobby that had fought
for double statehood in the case of Arizona and New
Mexico in the fifty-seventh Congress still threatened
to thwart the joint-state bill in this Congress. Rather
than have Arizona and New Mexico joined as one state,
those interests preferred the territorial condition
of both. Finally a compromise was effected. The people
of New Mexico and Arizona were to be permitted to
enter the Union as one state provided that, when the
enabling act was submitted for ratification, each
territory should vote separately, and a majority of
votes in favor of the measure should be required in
both territories to secure its ratification. This
proviso resulted as its supporters planned. New Mexico
gave a majority for statehood, while Arizona's vote
was against it, and as a result statehood for those
two territories has been delayed indefinitely.
The enabling act as finally passed received
the approval of the president on June 16, 1906. After
years of contest and argument, involving many interests
aside from those directly concerned, and in the course
of which many notable figures in the Nation's history
had acted their parts, Congress had performed its
duty to Oklahoma, and the center of action and interest
was transferred to the seat of the civilization that
had sprung up on the lands once dedicated to the Indian
races.
By the terms of the enabling act, the
qualified voters of Indian Territory and Oklahoma
were to vote for the acceptance or rejection of the
act on the date of the general election (November
6, 1906).
The enabling act, under which the two
territories proceeded to form a state constitution
and government, being the basis of statehood and second
in importance only to the state constitution, is given
here entire, except its provisions
as to New Mexico and Arizona.
|
|
|
|
