Choctaw & Chickasaw Descendants-Black History Day 11, Argument & Brief-Harry J. Cantrell

Choctaw & Chickasaw Descendants Black History Day 11, #BlackHistory365

Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs House of Representatives (61-2)

H.R. 192789, H.R. 19552 & H.R. 22830 pp 56-57

Digitized by Google

Argument & Brief Part 1

Argument by Harry J. Cantwell, esq.

 

Now, gentlemen, in the short time that I shall have, I shall not be able to go into this fully, but I simply want to call your attention to one particular thing in which the distinction has not been kept in mind, and that is this:

 

The argument it has proceeded largely upon the treaty of 1830; it has so proceeded even in the argument before the Senate at the other sessions; the argument proceeded on the theory that the use of the work “descendants” in the treaty of 1830 conferred upon the descendants of mixed Indian blood an equal right.

 

I submit that we are not confined to the treaty of 1830, and it is a little bit unfortunate that we should have gone back to the treaty of 1830, because it permitted the other side to invoke all the laws passed during slavery in their attempt to deny to these people their rights in the tribes. 

 

When the Cherokees and the Chickasaws came out of the war with these slaves, they first made a truce at Fort Smith in 1865, after the victory of the Union forces. That truce was never ratified as a treaty by the United States Senate. 

 

In 1866, however, a treaty was made between the Choctaws and Chickasaws which was ratified. Now, that treaty, by its express language, conferred certain rights upon certain express individuals designated as freedmen resident in the Territory at the date of the truce of Fort Smith, and their descendants anywhere formerly held in slavery. It was confined to those particular individuals who had formerly been in slavery.

 

That treaty provided that the Choctaws should cede certain territory west of 98 degrees west longitude in consideration of the sum of $300,000. That $300,000 was to be held in trust by the United States Government until the Choctaws and Chickasaws should pass certain laws and regulations giving to the freedmen, the former slaves, 40 acres of land. It is constantly reiterated that they are former slaves, being confined to these particular individuals.

 

Mr. Campbell. May I ask, if that treaty is binding, why could not those whose rights have been affected go into a court down there having jurisdiction, and have their rights adjudicated without coming to Congress? 

 

Mr. Cantwell. Well, if you will pardon me, there is a departmental decision that the rolls of citizenship are closed as of December 24, 1902, which precludes that, and until the land is distributed per capita the courts have constantly held that no person, full-blood, negro-Indian, or mixed white and Indian, has any standing in court to maintain any right under these treaties.

 

If you will pardon me a moment, I would like to go into that point, but it will disturb the order of this argument to go into it at this time. I simply want to emphasize the distinction between freedmen-that is, those who have been slaves on the one hand, as distinct from the word “freedmen” used generally in some of these acts on the other hand…

From the Constitutions of the Choctaw Nation, Western History Collection
Melvyn Cornish Collection, Box 9-Folder 8 pp 49-51