Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs 1885
H. L. NEWMAN. H. L. NEWMAN sworn and examined. By the Chairman : Question. Mr. Newman, where do you reside?—Answer. In Saint Louis. Q. What is your business?—A. I am a banker, and I am also interested in cattle ranches. Q. Where are these ranches located?—A. Well, sir, I have some interests in Montana, Nebraska, and some in the Indian Territory, and some in Texas. Q. Are your interests in Montana on Indian reservations?—A. No, sir; my interests there are not on Indian reservations. Q. You have interests, though, in some leases on Indian reservations, have you not?—A. Yes, sir. My interests on Indian lands are all in the Indian Territory. Q. All the interests you have on reservations are in the Indian Territory?—A. Yes, sir. Q. In what part of the Indian Territory?—A. I am interested in a company partly located on the Cherokee Strip. Q. What company is that?—A. It is the Comanche Land and Cattle Company. Q. You have interests in that company?—A. Yes, sir; and my brother and myself own a part of the lease made to R. D. Hunter in the Cheyenne and Arapaho Reservation. Q. Have you a copy of that lease with you?—A. No, sir; but I think Mr. Evans has. Q. You say you are a part owner ?—A. Yes, sir; the lease was executed to Mr. Hunter alone and I became interested afterwards; although when Mr. Hunter applied for the lease he said it was for himself and associates. It was understood then that I should be interested from the beginning. Q. The lease is made to Mr. Hunter individually, but after that he transferred a part to yourself and your associates?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Who are your associates?—A. My brother, Mr. Parker, and myself are associated. Q. Is a specified part fenced to itself?—A. Yes, sir; distinctly and apart from others. Q. Mr. Hunter was the sole lessee?—A. Yes, sir. Q. How much land does his lease embrace?—A. Well, I don't know the exact number of acres, but something over 400,000 acres. Q. Something over?00,000 acres?—A. Yes, sir. Q. How much over?—A. Well, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Evans together have a lease covering something about 770,000 acres and less than 800,000 acres; but I am not interested in that. It was of Colonel Hunter we took about 336,000 acres, leaving him only a small portion. Q. You got nothing from Mr. Evans?—A. No, sir. Q. Put all together, how much does Mr. Hunter's whole lease embrace?—A. Something like 448,000 acres, I think. By Mr. Bowen : Q. How much land did you say you got?—A. We got about 336,000 acres, leaving something over 100,000 acres. By the Chairman : Q. Who are "we"?—A. My brother, Mr. Parker, and myself. Q. Are you the only persons interested?—A. Yes, sir. Q. And you took this from Mr. Hunter's lease?—A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have your ranges distinct from them?—A. Yes, sir; we are separate, except that we own a part of the stock. Q. Is there nobody else but you interested in these subleases?—A. At this time; yes, sir. Q. Who is interested besides you there?—A. Mr. Maybry. Q. Where does he reside?—A. In Kansas City. Q. Has no other person; no one at any other time?—A. No, sir. Q. There was no one but you there until Mr. Maybry came in?—A.No, sir. Q. When did he become interested?—A. He became interested very recently; this last fall. Q. Are you lessees of Mr. Hunter or of the Indians?—A. We are lessees of Mr. Hunter. Q. What do you pay him?—A. We pay him 2 cents an acre. Q. Do you know what he pays the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; he pays them 2 cents an acre. Q. Were you present when he obtained his lease?—A. No, sir; I have never been in the Territory. Q. Who was with him?—A. I do not know who was with him. Q. Can you tell how your separate part of the Territory is bounded ?—A. No, sir; I cannot without having a map. We have a western portion of Colonel Hunter's. Q. How is the Hunter lease bounded? Describe it.—A. It takes the western portion of his whole lease. Q. Yours is separate from his?—A. Yes, sir; we have 336,000 acres separated from his by a fence. Q. It separates everybody's?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know how this land is defined in boundaries?—A. No, sir; I could not give the lines of it. I have never been there. Q. How much stock have you?—A. We haven't a hoof on it and never had. We have paid two year's rental and haven't had a hoof on it yet. Q. Why?—A. In the first place, we expected to stock the ranch last spring, but finances became close and we did not feel like buying cattle. It took the first year to fence it, which took a large amount of money. We intended, as I said, to stock it last spring, but the financial trouble came on. Q. What is the term of the lease?—A. It runs for ten years. We have leased it for ten years for a rental of 2 cents an acre, payable semi-annually, and we have paid rental from the beginning in advance. We pay six months in advance, and have made four payments. Q. You say the lease was made for ten years?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it for ten years without condition?—A. I do not know that there is a condition. I have not read the lease recently. Q. Is there a copy of it here?—A. I Suppose there is, possibly. Q. What do you understand is the title these Indians have to the land?—A. I do not know; it is a part of the Indian reservation, and I suppose they would have the same title as is usually invested in Indian reservations. Q. What is a title by executive order? What do you understand that that means?—A. I do not know what it is. Q. Has Mr. Hunter stocked his range?—A. Yes, sir; partly. Q. How many head of cattle has he?—A. They have between twenty and twenty-five thousand head, which they put on this fall. They did not stock it until this year. We have arranged to stock ours in the spring. Q. How much money have you spent on this land?—A. We have spent over $28,000. Q. What did the fencing cost?—A. Our expenses for fencing and everything have been over $28,000. Q. How many cattle do you suppose this range will support?—A. We have generally made an estimate of 20 acres to the animal. Q. What is the character of the land?—A. One part of it is said to be very poor. The grass is said to be not very good. I have a letter here from a gentleman who has seen it. Q. On whose judgment did you become lessee for ten years of this land?—A. Well, we acted upon what we learned from Mr. Hunter and Mr. Evans. Q. Is your brother acquainted with the land?—A. My brother has not seen the Territory. Q. Has either of the other gentlemen?—A. No, sir; none of the three have seen either the Indians or the Territory. I think my brother went through this country some years ago on his way to Texas. Q. Yet you have bound yourselves to pay these Indians this sum of money and have put no stock on it?—A. No, sir; we have put no stock upon it. Q. Who did you deal with in taking the sublease? —A. With Evans and Hunter. They are joint partners, and Evans has a lease and Hunter has one adjoining. We took our part from Mr. Hunter. Q. What did Evans have to do with the leases?—A. Well, nothing, except as a partner of Hunter's. They took the lease as partners and they fenced the land, in a common fence. Q. Where was the contract made?—A. The contract was made in Saint Louis. Q. Did you have any correspondence with the Department upon the subject of leases?—A. I was here for several days before and during the time the leases were made, and I had written some letters to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs concerning these leases. I had applied for a lease on this land: Q. What information did you get from the Interior Department?—A. The information from the Secretary was that whatever arrangement we made should be made directly with the Indians; and that if we made that arrangement, while he would not formally approve the leases, yet if we made them in good faith and paid what we proposed to pay, he did not see any objection to it, and as far as it was in his power we should be protected. It was something about in that way. That is the inference I drew from it. Q. Did you have more than one conversation with the Secretary?—A. Yes, sir; I had several conversations with the Secretary. Q. He assured you that you should be protected so long as you conformed to the terms of the lease?—A. Yes, sir; that was the understanding, that if we paid our rental and carried out our portion of the bargain he would see that we were protected, but he would not formally approve the leases. Q. Did he make a distinction between assuring protection and formally approving these leases? The Witness. How is that, sir? Q. Did be make a distinction between assuring you protection and formally approving the leases?—A. Well, sir, he made a distinction in the way I have mentioned. He said he would not formally approve them. Q. Then be did make a distinction?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that before the leases were made?—A. Yes, sir; this was before the leases were made. Then I had a conversation with him afterward. In company with Mr. Hooker, my attorney, I called upon him several times. We had applied several years before, both in writing and verbally, to Secretary Schurz for leases. Q. What answer did you get from the present Secretary?—A. We had encouragement from him to lease the property. We had assurances that we should be protected as far as he could do it. Q. He made a distinction between assuring you in the occupation of of the land and formally approving these leases?—A. Yes, sir. Q. What distinction was it that he made?—A. He said he had no authority for approving them, but that he would protect us from others if we paid the rental; that is, he would protect us from others who did not pay. Q. Did you show him what you were going to pay?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he express an opinion as to that?—A. No, sir; we made the application to him, and he said it should be made directly with the Indians. Q. Did you at the time state the terms of your leases?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he reply in writing or verbally?—A. I think there was nothing in writing. Q. Then be stated to you verbally what you have stated to us?—A. Yes, sir; after the leases were made there was a letter to Mr. Fenlon from the Secretary covering this matter. It was a response to all. Colonel Hunter had written a letter to him and he referred him to a letter written Mr. Fenlon, in which he had expressed himself, as I have said; and that is what we take as the position he would hold. Q. How do you understand that to be now?—A. Well, we thought that having complied with the terms of the leases and prepared to occupy the land, that we had the assurance of protection as far as the Department could give it to us. That is the way I understand it. Q. Did he indicate how far that was?—A. The letter expressed that very distinctly, but I could not repeat it now. We felt very safe after receiving the letter, and commenced making our investments and improvements. Q. Suppose the executive. order establishing this reservation should be revoked?—A. Well, sir, I do not know what could prevent it. We would of course then be losers, but we took that risk. We put our money into it in good faith, believing that the Government would act in good faith toward us. We understand that the Government had pledged its good faith to protect us. Q. Did you understand it went so far as to preserve the Executive order?—A. We had made the leases, and the price was known by the Secretary, the head of the Department of the Interior, representing the Government. Q. They knew the terms upon which you took the leases?—A. Yes, sir; and they also knew that we intended to fence the land and go to a great deal of expense, and that we intended buying cattle, which we have done, and we did not believe that we would be encouraged in this matter unless the Government would protect us. Otherwise we would not have done it. We would not have done it unless we felt the certain assurance of our protection, and that we had from the Secretary of the Interior. Q. Did you have an assurance that he would keep other people off?—A. Yes, sir; to the best of his ability. Q. What did you rely upon for the continuance of this protection when this Secretary has left his oftice?—A. We relied upon the good faith of the Government, that what one Secretary had done would be carried out by his successor. We expect protection from his successor, the same protection that we had received from Mr. Teller. We intended doing our part in perfect good faith. The Secretary stated plainly that while he could not approve of the leases, yet that he would not disapprove of them, and that he would protect us in these leases as far as it was possible to do so against others occupying the Territory. By Mr. Bowen: Q. Mr. Newman, you made a statement about the assurances of protection from the Secretary. Did he give you an assurance of general protection, or simply against, or persons occupying this land?—A. He assured us against other parties occupying the land. I do not know that he gave us any assurances against Indians. It was more against other parties, without regard to Indians. By Mr. Ingalls : Q. Have you read the letter to which you have referred, which the Secretary wrote to Mr. Ingalls?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you receive from the Secretary of the Interior any assurances other than those contained in that letter?—A. Well, I do not know of anything that we relied upon specially. I went several times to see him, and on one of those occasions he asked if we had stocked our territory. I told him that I did not know whether it was safe to do so. Q. You paid rental?—A. Yes, sir. Q. I understand you to say that after the leases were made the Secretary wrote a letter to Mr. Fenlon, which embodied the suggestions that the Secretary of the Interior wished to make with regard to these leases, and that it covered all of them. Although addressed to Mr. Fenlon it was regarded by all of you as an authoritative statement upon the subject?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you received from Mr. Teller any assurances outside of those contained in the letter addressed to Mr. Fenlon?—A. Yes, sir; we received verbal assurances. Q. Of course you can answer this question "Yes,"or "No,"whether you received from Mr. Teller any assurances or guarantees or pledges other than those contained in the letter to Mr. Fenton?—A. Yes, sir; I received assurances verbally, but they were to the same effect. Q. I asked you whether he gave you any additional guarantee beyond that contained in the letter to Mr. Fenlon. By Mr. Cameron : Q. Anything whatever? By Mr. Ingalls : Q. Yes; anything whatever in addition to what, was contained in the letter of Mr. Fenlon?—A. I cannot say that. We had a number of conversations with the Secretary. After that we felt that we were safe. Q. What I want to know is whether the letter to Mr. Fenlon embodied, as you understand it, the representations the Secretary made to you upon this subject?—A. I think so. Q. Then you are prepared to say that the Secretary never gave any additional assurances or pledges, other than those contained in that letter?—A. I do not recollect that there were any other assurances. Mr. Ingalls. Of course, Mr. Chairman, if there is a written statement from the Secretary as to the views of the Government on this subject that would be the best evidence. Mr. Harrison. If the witness has given the conversation with the Secretary, then the question whether the letter comports with the conversation, or goes further, or is short, is an important question. Mr. Ingalls. It is important to know whether these gentlemen received any personal assurances outside of the written guarantee. Mr. Harrison. You will get to that when he tells us what the Secretary said to him. The Chairman . Ask him to construe rather than to state what was said. Mr. Cameron. Before the letter was written, he and Mr. Hunter had a conversation with the Secretary of the Interior, in which he made certain statements, and afterwards this letter was written to Mr. Fen-Ion, and, as I understand, it is substantially what the Secretary had previously stated to them. By Mr. Walker : Q. Did the Secretary say anything in addition to what you have already stated?—A. I will say in a general way, that in all the conversations with the Secretary, I felt that we were perfectly safe in making the lease and making preparation to occupy the territory, believing that we would receive all the protection that could be given us by the Government. These are the assurances that I felt that we had—that we would be perfectly safe in making the lease, and to the extent of his ability we should be protected. By Mr. Ingalls: Q. The letter was written in summer of 1883?—A. It was written some time in the summer months or late in the spring. Q. Won't you look at the letter there [handing witness Senate, Ex. Doc. 54], and see if that is the letter to which you refer?—A. [Witness examines document]. Yes, sir; that is substantially the same. It is the letter I refer to. Q. Mr. Chairman , let that letter be identified. By the Chairman : Q. You allude to the letter of April 25, 1883, on the 99th page of Senate Ex. Doc. 54, first session Forty-eighth Congress?—A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Ingalls: Q. Having read that letter, what I ask is, Did the Secretary give you any additional assurances other than those contained in that letter?—A. Only to about the same effect. Mr. Ingalls. That is all I desire to say. By the Chairman : Q. You said you made four payments of rent?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you make them?—A. We gave the money to Mr. Hunter and Mr. Evans, and they sent a party with it to the Territory. Q. Do you know the manner in which it was paid?—A. No, sir. Q. You have no personal knowledge in regard to the manner?—A. No, sir; none whatever. By Mr. Cameron : Q. What improvements, if any, have you put up?—A. Fences, and some cabins; in fact, all necessary improvements for occupying the land as a range. The improvements we have put up and the expenses up to this time have been about $28,000. Q. Does that include the rental?—A. Well, there is still one payment—the last one—we made—which is not included in that statement. That was before that last payment was made, and the money we expended amounted to over $28,000. By the Chairman : Q. How large is a half-year payment ?—A. Our part is about $3,600. I would like to make a further statement; you ask why we have not occupied our range. We felt at one time that we would be glad to get rid of it. We have offered to let parties take it off of our hands. Large cattlemen went there and looked at property. A letter I have here shows the inspection they made of it. Q. That was entirely a business consideration?—A. Yes, sir. A large amount of the land is covered with coarse grass, which is not a winter or a very good summer grass; and a large portion of the land is not good for grazing. The letter I speak of gives the views of the party who have been over the land. I would like permission to read it. Terrell, Tex., May 7, 1884. Gentlemen: We have examined your lease in Indian Territory. The range is comparatively poor, and the risks of fire by the Indians very great. After careful examination and considerations of the surroundings, we decline to accept your offer of lease. In fact we would not put our cattle on this Territory free of charge, with the present surroundings. Yours, respectfully, CHILDRESS & DONNELL BROS., and E. P. DAVIS, Per A. J. C. Messrs Newman & Farr, Saint Louis, Mo. They went over the reservation and examined it, and this is their report. We felt that if they would take it off of our hands, we would be glad to get rid of it, but we are now ready to stock it. By Mr. Gorman: Q. What is the date of that letters—A. May 7, 1884. Return To Testimony Index.
This site may be freely linked, but not duplicated without consent. All rights reserved. Commercial use of material within this site is prohibited. The copyright (s) on this page must appear on all copied and/or printed material. © 2024 by C.S.L.S.A. Site Coordinator

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs
1885

H. L. NEWMAN.

H. L. NEWMAN sworn and examined.
By the Chairman :
Question. Mr. Newman, where do you reside?—Answer. In Saint Louis.
Q. What is your business?—A. I am a banker, and I am also interested in cattle ranches.
Q. Where are these ranches located?—A. Well, sir, I have some interests in Montana, Nebraska, and some in the Indian Territory, and some in Texas.
Q. Are your interests in Montana on Indian reservations?—A. No, sir; my interests there are not on Indian reservations.
Q. You have interests, though, in some leases on Indian reservations, have you not?—A. Yes, sir. My interests on Indian lands are all in the Indian Territory.
Q. All the interests you have on reservations are in the Indian Territory?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what part of the Indian Territory?—A. I am interested in a company partly located on the Cherokee Strip.
Q. What company is that?—A. It is the Comanche Land and Cattle Company.
Q. You have interests in that company?—A. Yes, sir; and my brother and myself own a part of the lease made to R. D. Hunter in the Cheyenne and Arapaho Reservation.
Q. Have you a copy of that lease with you?—A. No, sir; but I think Mr. Evans has.
Q. You say you are a part owner ?—A. Yes, sir; the lease was executed to Mr. Hunter alone and I became interested afterwards; although when Mr. Hunter applied for the lease he said it was for himself and associates. It was understood then that I should be interested from the beginning.
Q. The lease is made to Mr. Hunter individually, but after that he transferred a part to yourself and your associates?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who are your associates?—A. My brother, Mr. Parker, and myself are associated.
Q. Is a specified part fenced to itself?—A. Yes, sir; distinctly and apart from others.
Q. Mr. Hunter was the sole lessee?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much land does his lease embrace?—A. Well, I don't know the exact number of acres, but something over 400,000 acres.
Q. Something over?00,000 acres?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much over?—A. Well, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Evans together have a lease covering something about 770,000 acres and less than 800,000 acres; but I am not interested in that. It was of Colonel Hunter we took about 336,000 acres, leaving him only a small portion.
Q. You got nothing from Mr. Evans?—A. No, sir.
Q. Put all together, how much does Mr. Hunter's whole lease embrace?—A. Something like 448,000 acres, I think.

By Mr. Bowen :

Q. How much land did you say you got?—A. We got about 336,000 acres, leaving something over 100,000 acres.

By the Chairman :

Q. Who are "we"?—A. My brother, Mr. Parker, and myself.
Q. Are you the only persons interested?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you took this from Mr. Hunter's lease?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have your ranges distinct from them?—A. Yes, sir; we are separate, except that we own a part of the stock.
Q. Is there nobody else but you interested in these subleases?—A. At this time; yes, sir.
Q. Who is interested besides you there?—A. Mr. Maybry.
Q. Where does he reside?—A. In Kansas City.
Q. Has no other person; no one at any other time?—A. No, sir.
Q. There was no one but you there until Mr. Maybry came in?—A.No, sir.
Q. When did he become interested?—A. He became interested very recently; this last fall.
Q. Are you lessees of Mr. Hunter or of the Indians?—A. We are lessees of Mr. Hunter.
Q. What do you pay him?—A. We pay him 2 cents an acre.
Q. Do you know what he pays the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; he pays them 2 cents an acre.
Q. Were you present when he obtained his lease?—A. No, sir; I have never been in the Territory.
Q. Who was with him?—A. I do not know who was with him.
Q. Can you tell how your separate part of the Territory is bounded ?—A. No, sir; I cannot without having a map. We have a western portion of Colonel Hunter's.
Q. How is the Hunter lease bounded? Describe it.—A. It takes the western portion of his whole lease.
Q. Yours is separate from his?—A. Yes, sir; we have 336,000 acres separated from his by a fence.
Q. It separates everybody's?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how this land is defined in boundaries?—A. No, sir; I could not give the lines of it. I have never been there.
Q. How much stock have you?—A. We haven't a hoof on it and never had. We have paid two year's rental and haven't had a hoof on it yet.
Q. Why?—A. In the first place, we expected to stock the ranch last spring, but finances became close and we did not feel like buying cattle. It took the first year to fence it, which took a large amount of money. We intended, as I said, to stock it last spring, but the financial trouble came on.
Q. What is the term of the lease?—A. It runs for ten years. We have leased it for ten years for a rental of 2 cents an acre, payable semi-annually, and we have paid rental from the beginning in advance. We pay six months in advance, and have made four payments.
Q. You say the lease was made for ten years?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it for ten years without condition?—A. I do not know that there is a condition. I have not read the lease recently.
Q. Is there a copy of it here?—A. I Suppose there is, possibly.
Q. What do you understand is the title these Indians have to the land?—A. I do not know; it is a part of the Indian reservation, and I suppose they would have the same title as is usually invested in Indian reservations.
Q. What is a title by executive order? What do you understand that that means?—A. I do not know what it is.
Q. Has Mr. Hunter stocked his range?—A. Yes, sir; partly.
Q. How many head of cattle has he?—A. They have between twenty and twenty-five thousand head, which they put on this fall. They did not stock it until this year. We have arranged to stock ours in the spring.
Q. How much money have you spent on this land?—A. We have spent over $28,000.
Q. What did the fencing cost?—A. Our expenses for fencing and everything have been over $28,000.
Q. How many cattle do you suppose this range will support?—A. We have generally made an estimate of 20 acres to the animal.
Q. What is the character of the land?—A. One part of it is said to be very poor. The grass is said to be not very good. I have a letter here from a gentleman who has seen it.
Q. On whose judgment did you become lessee for ten years of this land?—A. Well, we acted upon what we learned from Mr. Hunter and Mr. Evans.
Q. Is your brother acquainted with the land?—A. My brother has not seen the Territory.
Q. Has either of the other gentlemen?—A. No, sir; none of the three have seen either the Indians or the Territory. I think my brother went through this country some years ago on his way to Texas.
Q. Yet you have bound yourselves to pay these Indians this sum of money and have put no stock on it?—A. No, sir; we have put no stock upon it.
Q. Who did you deal with in taking the sublease? —A. With Evans and Hunter. They are joint partners, and Evans has a lease and Hunter has one adjoining. We took our part from Mr. Hunter.
Q. What did Evans have to do with the leases?—A. Well, nothing, except as a partner of Hunter's. They took the lease as partners and they fenced the land, in a common fence.
Q. Where was the contract made?—A. The contract was made in Saint Louis.
Q. Did you have any correspondence with the Department upon the subject of leases?—A. I was here for several days before and during the time the leases were made, and I had written some letters to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs concerning these leases. I had applied for a lease on this land:
Q. What information did you get from the Interior Department?—A. The information from the Secretary was that whatever arrangement we made should be made directly with the Indians; and that if we made that arrangement, while he would not formally approve the leases, yet if we made them in good faith and paid what we proposed to pay, he did not see any objection to it, and as far as it was in his power we should be protected. It was something about in that way. That is the inference I drew from it.
Q. Did you have more than one conversation with the Secretary?—A. Yes, sir; I had several conversations with the Secretary.
Q. He assured you that you should be protected so long as you conformed to the terms of the lease?—A. Yes, sir; that was the understanding, that if we paid our rental and carried out our portion of the bargain he would see that we were protected, but he would not formally approve the leases.
Q. Did he make a distinction between assuring protection and formally approving these leases?
The Witness. How is that, sir?
Q. Did be make a distinction between assuring you protection and formally approving the leases?—A. Well, sir, he made a distinction in the way I have mentioned. He said he would not formally approve them.
Q. Then be did make a distinction?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that before the leases were made?—A. Yes, sir; this was before the leases were made. Then I had a conversation with him afterward. In company with Mr. Hooker, my attorney, I called upon him several times. We had applied several years before, both in writing and verbally, to Secretary Schurz for leases.
Q. What answer did you get from the present Secretary?—A. We had encouragement from him to lease the property. We had assurances that we should be protected as far as he could do it.
Q. He made a distinction between assuring you in the occupation of of the land and formally approving these leases?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. What distinction was it that he made?—A. He said he had no authority for approving them, but that he would protect us from others if we paid the rental; that is, he would protect us from others who did not pay.
Q. Did you show him what you were going to pay?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he express an opinion as to that?—A. No, sir; we made the application to him, and he said it should be made directly with the Indians.
Q. Did you at the time state the terms of your leases?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he reply in writing or verbally?—A. I think there was nothing in writing.
Q. Then be stated to you verbally what you have stated to us?—A. Yes, sir; after the leases were made there was a letter to Mr. Fenlon from the Secretary covering this matter. It was a response to all. Colonel Hunter had written a letter to him and he referred him to a letter written Mr. Fenlon, in which he had expressed himself, as I have said; and that is what we take as the position he would hold.
Q. How do you understand that to be now?—A. Well, we thought that having complied with the terms of the leases and prepared to occupy the land, that we had the assurance of protection as far as the Department could give it to us. That is the way I understand it.
Q. Did he indicate how far that was?—A. The letter expressed that very distinctly, but I could not repeat it now. We felt very safe after receiving the letter, and commenced making our investments and improvements.
Q. Suppose the executive. order establishing this reservation should be revoked?—A. Well, sir, I do not know what could prevent it. We would of course then be losers, but we took that risk. We put our money into it in good faith, believing that the Government would act in good faith toward us. We understand that the Government had pledged its good faith to protect us.
Q. Did you understand it went so far as to preserve the Executive order?—A. We had made the leases, and the price was known by the Secretary, the head of the Department of the Interior, representing the Government.
Q. They knew the terms upon which you took the leases?—A. Yes, sir; and they also knew that we intended to fence the land and go to a great deal of expense, and that we intended buying cattle, which we have done, and we did not believe that we would be encouraged in this matter unless the Government would protect us. Otherwise we would not have done it. We would not have done it unless we felt the certain assurance of our protection, and that we had from the Secretary of the Interior.
Q. Did you have an assurance that he would keep other people off?—A. Yes, sir; to the best of his ability.
Q. What did you rely upon for the continuance of this protection when this Secretary has left his oftice?—A. We relied upon the good faith of the Government, that what one Secretary had done would be carried out by his successor. We expect protection from his successor, the same protection that we had received from Mr. Teller. We intended doing our part in perfect good faith. The Secretary stated plainly that while he could not approve of the leases, yet that he would not disapprove of them, and that he would protect us in these leases as far as it was possible to do so against others occupying the Territory.

By Mr. Bowen:

Q. Mr. Newman, you made a statement about the assurances of protection from the Secretary. Did he give you an assurance of general protection, or simply against, or persons occupying this land?—A. He assured us against other parties occupying the land. I do not know that he gave us any assurances against Indians. It was more against other parties, without regard to Indians.

By Mr. Ingalls :

Q. Have you read the letter to which you have referred, which the Secretary wrote to Mr. Ingalls?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you receive from the Secretary of the Interior any assurances other than those contained in that letter?—A. Well, I do not know of anything that we relied upon specially. I went several times to see him, and on one of those occasions he asked if we had stocked our territory. I told him that I did not know whether it was safe to do so.
Q. You paid rental?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. I understand you to say that after the leases were made the Secretary wrote a letter to Mr. Fenlon, which embodied the suggestions that the Secretary of the Interior wished to make with regard to these leases, and that it covered all of them. Although addressed to Mr. Fenlon it was regarded by all of you as an authoritative statement upon the subject?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you received from Mr. Teller any assurances outside of those contained in the letter addressed to Mr. Fenlon?—A. Yes, sir; we received verbal assurances.
Q. Of course you can answer this question "Yes,"or "No,"whether you received from Mr. Teller any assurances or guarantees or pledges other than those contained in the letter to Mr. Fenton?—A. Yes, sir; I received assurances verbally, but they were to the same effect.
Q. I asked you whether he gave you any additional guarantee beyond that contained in the letter to Mr. Fenlon.

By Mr. Cameron :

Q. Anything whatever?

By Mr. Ingalls :

Q. Yes; anything whatever in addition to what, was contained in the letter of Mr. Fenlon?—A. I cannot say that. We had a number of conversations with the Secretary. After that we felt that we were safe.
Q. What I want to know is whether the letter to Mr. Fenlon embodied, as you understand it, the representations the Secretary made to you upon this subject?—A. I think so.
Q. Then you are prepared to say that the Secretary never gave any additional assurances or pledges, other than those contained in that letter?—A. I do not recollect that there were any other assurances.
Mr. Ingalls. Of course, Mr. Chairman, if there is a written statement from the Secretary as to the views of the Government on this subject that would be the best evidence.
Mr. Harrison. If the witness has given the conversation with the Secretary, then the question whether the letter comports with the conversation, or goes further, or is short, is an important question.
Mr. Ingalls. It is important to know whether these gentlemen received any personal assurances outside of the written guarantee.
Mr. Harrison. You will get to that when he tells us what the Secretary said to him.
The Chairman . Ask him to construe rather than to state what was said.
Mr. Cameron. Before the letter was written, he and Mr. Hunter had a conversation with the Secretary of the Interior, in which he made certain statements, and afterwards this letter was written to Mr. Fen-Ion, and, as I understand, it is substantially what the Secretary had previously stated to them.

By Mr. Walker :

Q. Did the Secretary say anything in addition to what you have already stated?—A. I will say in a general way, that in all the conversations with the Secretary, I felt that we were perfectly safe in making the lease and making preparation to occupy the territory, believing that we would receive all the protection that could be given us by the Government. These are the assurances that I felt that we had—that we would be perfectly safe in making the lease, and to the extent of his ability we should be protected.

By Mr. Ingalls:

Q. The letter was written in summer of 1883?—A. It was written some time in the summer months or late in the spring.
Q. Won't you look at the letter there [handing witness Senate, Ex. Doc. 54], and see if that is the letter to which you refer?—A. [Witness examines document]. Yes, sir; that is substantially the same. It is the letter I refer to.
Q. Mr. Chairman , let that letter be identified.

By the Chairman :

Q. You allude to the letter of April 25, 1883, on the 99th page of Senate Ex. Doc. 54, first session Forty-eighth Congress?—A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Ingalls:

Q. Having read that letter, what I ask is, Did the Secretary give you any additional assurances other than those contained in that letter?—A. Only to about the same effect.
Mr. Ingalls. That is all I desire to say.

By the Chairman :

Q. You said you made four payments of rent?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you make them?—A. We gave the money to Mr. Hunter and Mr. Evans, and they sent a party with it to the Territory.
Q. Do you know the manner in which it was paid?—A. No, sir.
Q. You have no personal knowledge in regard to the manner?—A. No, sir; none whatever.

By Mr. Cameron :

Q. What improvements, if any, have you put up?—A. Fences, and some cabins; in fact, all necessary improvements for occupying the land as a range. The improvements we have put up and the expenses up to this time have been about $28,000.
Q. Does that include the rental?—A. Well, there is still one payment—the last one—we made—which is not included in that statement. That was before that last payment was made, and the money we expended amounted to over $28,000.

By the Chairman :

Q. How large is a half-year payment ?—A. Our part is about $3,600. I would like to make a further statement; you ask why we have not occupied our range. We felt at one time that we would be glad to get rid of it. We have offered to let parties take it off of our hands. Large cattlemen went there and looked at property. A letter I have here shows the inspection they made of it.
Q. That was entirely a business consideration?—A. Yes, sir. A large amount of the land is covered with coarse grass, which is not a winter or a very good summer grass; and a large portion of the land is not good for grazing. The letter I speak of gives the views of the party who have been over the land. I would like permission to read it.

Terrell, Tex., May 7, 1884.

Gentlemen: We have examined your lease in Indian Territory. The range is comparatively poor, and the risks of fire by the Indians very great. After careful examination and considerations of the surroundings, we decline to accept your offer of lease. In fact we would not put our cattle on this Territory free of charge, with the present surroundings.
Yours, respectfully,

CHILDRESS & DONNELL BROS., and E. P. DAVIS,

Per A. J. C.

Messrs Newman & Farr,
Saint Louis, Mo.

They went over the reservation and examined it, and this is their report. We felt that if they would take it off of our hands, we would be glad to get rid of it, but we are now ready to stock it.

By Mr. Gorman:

Q. What is the date of that letters—A. May 7, 1884.

Return To Testimony Index.

This site may be freely linked, but not duplicated without consent.
All rights reserved. Commercial use of material within this site is prohibited.
The copyright (s) on this page must appear on all copied and/or printed material.
© 2024 by C.S.L.S.A. Site Coordinator