| OCR Text |
Show tion of any person for enrollment as a member of any tribe in Indian Territory who has notbeen a reoognized citizen thereof and duly and lawfully enrolled or admitted as such, and ita refual of mch application shall be h a 1 when approved by the Sec-retary of the Interior. He also referred to Department telegram of June 9, 1900, which was as follows: Commission should make memoranda of the facts and its reason for refusal to tocon-sider or make record of application of any peraon for enrollment. Its investigation should extend "to all facts necessary toa complete knowledge of applicant's claim." Provision r e f e d to does not enlarge authority of commission "heretofore conferred on it. by law," except aa to Missimippi Choctaws. The commission desired information upon the following points: 1. I n eases where an the second an.n . eamnce of the ao. d. icant when the first an. n. ear-m~ cco t the applicxnt w u p rior to \ f l y ;<I,I 'AO,ara\ the vun~lniaionf inds rhar it ha? no jtlri~livri~,~t~IB. UIIthIJe inveiri-~ ztiuno i the eomtt~~pai"orlx~r tmd t c r all iwm ncc-essary to a complete knowledge of the applicant's claim," or should the commission determine whether i t has jurisdiction, and if not, decline to receive or file an.y p-ap- ers or to make a. record of the rase? 2. In cases in which hearinga were had at Atoka and Colbert during the month of June, 1900, or at the general offices at Muskogee since May 31,19W, and prior to the receipt of the decision in the Charles C. Yeiser case, and the commission finds that it had no jurisdiction, should the cards on which the names of surh applicants appear he destroyed and the files in these cases converted to memoranda, and d l papers filed in such eases he returned to the applicants? 3. In case which were heard by the commission prior to the 3151 day of May, 1900, and in which the commission had no jurisdiction, should the commission keep in its file all papers which have been filed, and continue to accept and file such papers as may be offered by the applicants in the future7 Office report of August 8, 1900, stated that in the opinion of this office it was the duty of the commission to elicit from the applicants all the facts necessary to determine whether or not the commivsion should make a record; that it should learn the nature of the claim made by the applicant, as was done in the Yeiser case; and that when it was perfectly clear to the commission that the applicant, could not be enrolled, even though all the facts stated by him were true, it should refuse to take any further testimony. The office also suggested that it would he well to advise the applicant that if he desired to do so he could appeal to the Department from the decision of the comn~ission. August 21,1900, the Departmentreplied to thecommission's inquiries as follows: As to yonr first inquiry, the Department agrees with you that the instructions in the Skagge eaee of December 26, 1889, should be carried out, as at the original hear-ing, prior to the act of May 31, 1900, parties were not permitted to file papersas they should have been. As to yonr third, you should keep all papers that have been filid, and accept any proper ones that may be offered. As to your second, the Department has to state that in snoh eases, when the com-miasion, in accordance with the act of May 31, 1900, has determined that a party |
