Burford - John Milton - Montgomery InGenWeb Project

Source: Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. 13 #2, June 1935 - Thomas H. Doyle

On March 8, 1892, John H. (sic) Burford, formerly of Crawfordsville, Indiana, was appointed by President Harrison to succeed Judge Seay, who had resigned to become Governor of the Territory of Oklahoma, succeeding Governor, Steele, of Indiana, afterwards congressman from that state.  p. 216 -- 2nd Judicial District embracing Canadian, Kingfisher, Blaine, Washit and "O" (now Garfield) Ciounties with Judge Burford assigned thereto ...Hnorable John C. tarsney (Kansas City, Missouri on May 19, 1896) was appointed by President Cleveland to succeed Judge Burford ... On Feb 16, 1896, Hon. John H. Burford was appointed Chief Justice by Pres. McKinley, succeeding Judge Dale.  

p. 217 - On June 4, 1902, the territory was divided into 7 Judicial Districts - 1st embracing Logan, Lincoln and Payne . Chief Justice Burford assigned ,, at the time the territory was admitted into the Union as a part of the State of OK, the Supreme Court of the Territory of OK was composed of the following members: Burford, Chief Justice ...  

================================

Source: Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. 8 #1, March 1930 - by AGC Bierer

... that the conditions in OK in that early day were "sui Generis," that is "of its own kind," and, indeed, these historic words were emphasized by the third and last Chief Justice of our early day territorial courts, Honorable John H. Burford, also deceased, in his famous, somewhat dissenting but called concurring, opinion in the famous case of Autry v. France, which memorable and momentous case decided the great question of the right and power of our splendid constitutional convention to submit a constitution to the people of Oklahoa in 1907, under such terms and wich such provisions as pleased the constitutional convention, although it was strenously urged at that time these provisions did not please the court.  Looking back over this history of early day courts and lawyers, it may seem to us strange that such a question would ever have been raised, and it is stranger to us now to contemplate and remember that most vital of all decisions, which enabled us to go ahead with the state government and leaves our infancy of territorial government was concurred in fully by only three of the Justices who participated therein, was squarely dissented with by two - Justices Irwin and Burwell was only concurringly approved by one other, Chief Justice Burford and that the decision itself was the reversal of the square judgment enjoining the prescribed officers ....