OCR Text |
Show In making explanations on complaint of Creek authorities for not removing intruders, Agent Wisdom gave in his report of June 15,1896, as one of the reasons why certain intrnders had not beeuremoved, that "it is well known to the Department that I have no fuuds available to remove intruders, and I have not felt authorized to use the money tendered me by the Creek Nation, and by the Choctaw Nation also, without express authority from your Department." However, some of the parties against whom complaint had been made had received payment from the Cherokee Nation for their improve-ments, and others had been tendered the amounts awmded, and it was not apparent that there was any possible reason why they should not be removed. Tlle office therefore made the following recommendation as to their removal: On the list submitted by Chief Mayes there appear the name of 38 persons (indicated by a cross), who are shown by the files of this office to have received the amounts awarded by the board of appraisers and 23 (indicated by a circle) to whom tender of the amount awarded has been made. As to these 50 heads of families, representing 500 persons-allowing 10 to the family, according to tbe rule adopted by Messrs. Benge and Hastings in their letter of April 15,1897, which accompar~iedm y report of May 19,1897-there can certainly be novalid or just reason advanced why they should not be ejected from their illegal occupany of improve-ments. The appropriation for the employment of Indian police would admit of the appointment and rationing of a temporary police force of say 60 men, including officers, fur a period of two months, and it is believed that with such force, supported by a troop of cavalry (there is now a troop at Fort Gibson, in the Cherokee Nation), the Indian ageut would be able successfully to remove the intruders from their illegal holdings. It is thought that if the intruders are merely dispossessed of the lands and improvements illegally held by them it will be carrying out the ~p i r iotf the treaties and the agreement of 1891, and will be a sufficient discharge of the obligations of the Government thereunder, and will he satisfactorv to the Cherokee Nation. which of itself is nowerless to il~terl'elei l l n i y manner a ~ t l Il ~ iHllfr 1111erotri their l t o s ~ ~ ~ ~ iHoii~v-~ a inp been tlllla dispossessed, the iutrodersw~~lllidn vc lo shift for them. seives, and they would naturally either seek employment with citizens of the nation, like other noncitizens therein, or departfrom the Cherokee country altogether. As stated above, there can be no valid reason why the intruders who have accepted pay for their improvements, and the twenty-two to whom tender of payment was made, making in all fifty heads of families, should not be removed; but I am of the opinion that it would be well to make a beginning by dispossessing the twenty-eight persons who have aocept,ed payment, eud whom I ha>-e caused to be designated on Chief Mayes7s list by a cross mark in red ink. The Cherokee authori-ties should, lrowever, be required to appoint one or more respousible doers to accompany the agent and assist in identifying the parties whose ~emovails contemplated under the plan as herein proposed, and the agent should be ir~struotedt o turn the improvements from which the intruders may be removed over to such person or persons as the nation shall designate to hold them on its behalf. Having thus briefly outlined the case, I have the honor to recommend |