Mr. SNIFFEN. There are two cases mentioned in that report. Mr. ROACH. That is what I want to know. You seem to have gotten in your report just about all of that sort of cases you know of. You think, that being true, you are justified in trying to lead the public to believe that it is the general condition rather than an exceptional condition? Mr. SNIFFEN. If you go back over the history of these things- Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes; I do. Mr. ROACH. That is your idea of dealing fairly with the public. Here is another charge. I am just going over it with you to get a general idea of how your mind was running: That young Indian girls are being robbed of their virtue and their property through kidnaping and a liberal use of liquor. Do you mean that to be in exceptional cases or is that the general practice in Oklahoma? Mr. SNIFFEN. I do not know how general it is. I know it was certainly the case. Mr. ROACH. Your article conveys the idea to my mind that it is the general practice, and that is what we are trying to find out. You can find plenty of isolated cases, probably, even worse than that. Is that just an isolated case that you had in mind when you wrote this article? Mr. SNIFFEN. That is a case I had in mind when I wrote that. Mr. ROACH. The only case? Mr. SNIFFEN. That is the only case I know of positively. Mr. ROACH. How many others? Mr. SNIFFEN. There are others that I do not know of, probably. Mr. ROACH. If you do not know of it you do not know of it. You mean to say there was but one case that you knew of when you wrote that? Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes; as applied to the Five Tribes. Mr. ROACH. You might, for the purpose of the record, if you will, put in the facts of that one case that you have mentioned which was one of kidnaping through the liberal use of liquor for the purpose of robbing the estate. Mr. SNIFFEN. Take it from this record. Mr. ROACH. Is it quoted in your record? Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes; the Millie Neharkey case, pages 23 to 26. She is here in town if you want to see a girl that was used that way; I think it would be quite a shock to realize it. Mr. ROACH. That is a shocking case. What we want to find out is whether that is a general practice which is being pursued or some isolated case. There are shocking cases that occur in every community, whether they have Indians or not, but it is no reason for a general attack on the integrity of the courts, the lawyers, and the guardians. Mr. HASTINGS. As I understand this case, this girl was kidnaped just before coming of age and there was no reflection upon the courts. Were not some outside parties charged with doing this? Was there any reflection on the court in this case? Mr. SNIFFEN. Not in that case: no. Mr. HASTINGS. She was about to become of age and it is alleged that she was kidnaped and taken outside of the State in order to get a deed or an oil lease on her land. As I understand that case, there is no reflection on the court at all, is there? Mr. SNIFFEN. I do not think there is any reflection on the court there. Mr. HASTINGS. I just want to put that in the record. Mr. ROACH. That is the only case that you know of of that character? Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes. Mr. ROACH. And the courts have already taken steps to enforce the law against the culprit in that case? Mr. SNIFFEN. No; the case is still pending. Mr. ROACH. Proceedings are under way to prosecute the offender? Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes; but they did not take it up until an investigation was made. Mr. John H. Moser has that case in charge and it might be worth while for you to call him. He can give you the facts as the result of his first-hand investigation in conducting proceedings. Mr. ROACH. I do not think any one questions but what these parties were guilty of an offense. I do not doubt that the officer took proper action against them, but because of one case of that character, do you think that you are justified in leading the public and Congress to believe that is the general practice prevalent in eastern Oklahoma? Mr. SNIFFEN. I do not say the general practice, but that is not an isolated instance, although I can not mention others. Mr. ROACH. So far as you are concerned, and as far as the committee is concerned, it is an isolated case? Mr. SNIFFEN. In that I can not mention others; yes. Mr. CARTER. In your indictment here of the administration of these affairs, Mr. Sniffen, I notice you cite the Ledcie Stechi case? Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes. Mr. CARTER. That is the only case that comes from the third congressional district and is, therefore the only one about which I have information. I notice in your report, starting with page 26, at the bottom of this page you say that Little Ledcie Stechi, a Choctaw minor, 7 years old, owned rich oil property in McCurtain County. Is that true? Mr. SNIFFEN. I believe so. Mr. CARTER. You are familiar with the facts and say that Ledcie Stechi died owning valuable oil property in McCurtain County? Mr. SNIFFEN. That is my understanding. Mr. CARTER. Did you know that there had never been a drop of oil produced in McCurtain County? Mr. SNIFFEN. No. Mr. CARTER. Did you investigate this case of Ledcie Stechi personMr. SNIFFEN. I was done there and went over the ground, and out ally? through the hills. Mr. CARTER. And you did not find out there was no oil production in McCurtain County in your investigation? Mr. SNIFFEN. No. Mr. CARTER. Did you see any derrick or any production of oil in the county while you were there? Mr. SNIFFEN. Not that I recall. Mr. CARTER. Did you see any evidence of production of oil? Mr. SNIFFEN. I was not familiar with county boundary lines, as you people who live in Oklahoma are, and according to the record there was a property that she owned that was oil bearing. Mr: CARTER. Do you know that there is no oil within 135 miles of McCurtain County-no oil production? Mr. SNIFFEN. No, I do not. Mr. CARTER. Did you see Ledcie Stechi? Mr. SNIFFEN. No, she is dead. I saw her grave. Mr. CARTER. You investigated after she was dead? Mr. SNIFFEN. Yes. Mr. CARTER. I notice you make the charge here in your statement that the guardian connived. After the discovery of oil on the 20 acres above mentioned, her uncle, Noel Samuel, who was her guardian, was induced to resign through a combination of various tactics, force, persuasion, and offer of reward, which he never got. Can you give the committee something to investigate as to the offer of reward, coercion or persuasion, and as to the various other tactics employed, and who employed them? Mr. SNIFFEN. Simply what Noel Samuel told me. Mr. CARTER. That is hearsay, of course. But can you say who it was he said tried to coerce him? Mr. SNIFFEN. I will have to look into that case to get the original notes if you want it. Mr. CARTER. Who it was that offered the reward, etc.? Mr. SNIFFEN. I can not give you it offhand. Mr. CARTER. If some of the balance of the committee will see that that case is in the record, that is very important, because I have to go away in a few moments. Then you say on page 28: "in vain she asked for an examination of the body, believing Ledcie Stechi had been poisoned. 'No use, bury the body,' commanded the legal guardian." Do you know who was the legal guardian? Mr. SNIFFEN. Jordan Whiteman. Mr. CARTER. Do you know Jordan Whiteman made that statement? Mr. SNIFFEN. No, not personally. Mr. CARTER. It is specified very clearly in this respect that he did make it. Mr. SNIFFEN. That statement was written by Mrs. Bonnin. Mr. CARTER. Then you have no knowledge of that? Mr. SNIFFEN. I have no knowledge of that statement, no. Mr. CARTER. You were down there and have no personal knowledge of that statement having been made by Mr. Jordan Whiteman? Mr. SNIFFEN. No, I have no personal knowledge. Mr. CARTER. Further on, you say that the child was permitted to die for lack of funds, and in fact that no effort was made by the guardian to obtain funds for the child to relieve her condition. Do you know whether or not Mr. Whiteman took this girl to Paris, Tex., at his own expense to have her treated when he did not have the funds and could not get the funds with which to pay her expenses? Mr. SNIFFEN. According to the record, it shows that Whiteman did take the girl to Paris, Tex. Mr. CARTER. At his own expense? Mr. SNIFFEN. I do not know about his own expense. Mr. CARTER, I would not be positive, but that is my recollection. Mr. SNIFFEN. It was at a time when the girl was so emaciated and so near dead that there was little hope of anything being done for her. Mr. CARTER, Then you say that Mr. Whiteman would not use the funds, and the Indian Bureau would not use her funds for her care and attention while she was in this condition. Do you know whether Mr. Whiteman tried to get funds from the Indian Bureau to take care of her?! Mr. SNIFFEN. I do not know as to that. I understand that he was receiving at the time of her death $200 a month for her care. and out of that #15 a month was set aside for the maintenance of Ledcie Stechi and her grandmother, who lived up in the hills at Smithville, The details, if some one else was to blame. I do not know; the general result I do know, that Ledcie Stechi died and examination showed it was the result of undernourishment. Mr. CARTER. Yes; I think there is no dispute of that. Mr. SNIFFEN. 11 is the fault of the system, remeiy it. But it does not bring the gut back to life. That concerns me. Mr. CARTER, You Foto Bat he had $200 a month at the time Ledcie Stechi died? #ow long before she died did he have this! Mr. SNIFFEN. I do poj Ayly vý Mr. CARTER. Do you to be made application to the court for an allowance, that the k aproved an allowance for her, the probate attorney approve allowance and it was turned dow: by the Indian Bureau an mpok permitted to have it! Mr. SNIFFEN. If the Inish 15.pon failed to give the proper support in a case of that king, a goves the strongest kind of censure. I am not concerned about 2 BAKİ Mr. CARTER. I am trying 19 g 1% facts in this particular case. You do not know whether butik gak kyk fucks or not? Mr. SNIFFEN. No. Mr. CARTER, Those are voy gorkant facts in the ease that caz be obtained from the record. Sow. 397 complain about a guardian having been appointed in anokaka Do you know why that guardian was appointed? Mr. SNIFFEN. Which guardian? Mr. SNIFFEN. Following Noel om Mr. CARTER. Where the guardon me for Nellie Stech.. after the death of Ledcie Stechi? Mr. SNIFFEN. I knew that they did not appoint the guardian that the grandmother wanted. Mr. CARTER. But they appointed the g " that the Indian Bureau and the court finally agreed upong & & Hay not! Mr. CARTER. The record shows that. Do you know that the guardian was appointed for the reason that two attorneys had contracted with those Indians upon this estate with two claimants for this estate at a fee of 50 per cent each of the entire estate, and that the guardian was appointed to prevent approval of these contracts. Did you know that was true? Mr. SNIFFEN. That was a good rule. surprised that there were only two. If that was the case I am Mr. CARTER. I wanted to get that in the record. That is what the record shows. I will call your attention to this fact, that after the case had gone through I asked one of the probate attorneys a question: "Did you find any act of this county judge that would bring suspicion upon him?" He said, "I did not." That was in the Ledcie Stechi case. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SNIFFEN. The fact remains that Ledcie died of neglect. Whoever is responsible may be a matter of dispute. The CHAIRMAN. But you are unable to point out who was responsible for her death in response to the questions that have just been asked you by Mr. Carter? Mr. SNIFFEN. It seems to me that if the guardian had $200 a month and was allowing Ledcie Stechie and her grandmother $15 a month for subsistence and clothing the responsibility would rest to a large extent on the guardian. Mr. ROACH. Do you know of any present-day case where such a condition as that prevails as prevailed in that case? Mr. SNIFFEN. I can not mention offhand, no. Mr. ROACH. Would you undertake to tell the committee, then, that the conditions in this girl's case that you have just detailed exists, either generally or specially, here in eastern Oklahoma, among the guardians, in dealing with their wards? Mr. SNIFFEN. I was told by people I talked with that there were many cases where the estates had been either dissipated or the guardians were not paying any attention to the wards, or they had just gone back into the hills and lived, just existed as best they could. Mr. ROACH. Of course, that is a charge easily made. Mr. SNIFFEN. I understand that. Mr. ROACH. Here is a case where it appears that the ward was neglected. What the committee wants to know is whether that condition prevails now or is general among the guardians and their wards. If it is, it should be immediately corrected. But you say you do not know about any other single case. Is that right? Mr. SNIFFEN. Of course, the fact that I do not know does not say that they are not in existence. The CHAIRMAN. But you made charges. Mr. ROACH. You say here, at least, lead the committee and the public to understand that that is a general condition. Mr. SNIFFEN. I believe that there are many of these cases; yes. Mr. ROACH. Well, produce them. Mr. SNIFFEN. I can not produce them. The CHAIRMAN. There is a great deal of difference between believing and knowing. What this committee wants is something you know, not what you believe. |