The fund so created under the terms of the act of 1889, is a trust fund to be held in trust for 50 years after allotments were made, with the provision that, during the trust period, if any unforseen misfortune overtook the Indians, it would be drawn upon to supply their needs. Congress has ignored this agreement by annually appropriating large sums of money from this permanent or trust fund, to defray the administrative expenses of the Government in supervising the affairs of the Indians. This has been done contrary to their wishes. and avails the Indians practically nothing. Thus this fund is annually being depleted to the serious detriment of the persons (Indians) for whom the trust fund was created.

Will you, as a Member of Congress, supposedly a Representative of the people, continue this wasteful manner of our funds to continue, and at the same time sit by, when it seems plainly your duty to act irrespective of the head of the Indian Bureau?

We think not, and trust that you will see the reasonableness of our request, and with your personal effort we look for your aid in, the premises.

Respectfully,

There is no use now going into the dispute between the Government and these Indians. I think some of the members of the committee are familiar with it. Senator Curtis is, I know. They claim that this fund was provided by an act of Congress, and is a trust fund, and the Congress has no right to appropriate out of that fund for the support of the Indian Bureau, etc. I am not going to take time to go into that, but I would call attention to this statement just read. I presume the committee are familiar with the conditions. Senator HARRELD. Do they deny the right of Congress to make per capita appropriations?

Senator KELLOGG. Oh, no.

Senator HARRELD. You say appropriations?

Senator KELLOGG. General appropriations for the maintenance of the Indian Bureau and appropriations for the needy families without making appropriations for all the Indians under the treaty and under the law. As I understand, that is the position they take.

It would seem from the correspondence I have that there is a great deal of destitution there at this time, and that something ought to be done.

I believe that is all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no other Senator or Member of the House that wants to be heard, we will take up the bill section by section.

Senator NORBECK. I would like to be heard just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER NORBECK, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

Senator NORBECK. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here from Congressman Williamson that I think refers to this bill. He calls attention to one provision in the lower part of page 2 in the revision print of the bill. But I do not care to discuss that matter at this time. Mr. Chairman, except to call attention to it. I would like to discuss that very briefly when the proper time comes.

The CHAIRMAN. You may discuss it now, if you prefer to.

Senator CURTIS. You mean beginning with line 23 of page 2-is that what you mean?

Senator NORBECK. I read from the Congressman's letter here, which will explain itself. He writes as follows:

"Permit me to call your attention to H. R. 13835, being the Indian omnibus bill passed by the House last Saturday. You will observe that section 1 provides for the appraisement and pro rata distribution of all unallotted lands and undistributed property and funds of the various Indian tribes with certain exceptions. I desire to expressly direct your attention to the first paragraph on page 3"

That was the House bill, as originally printed.

"which reads as follows:

66 6

That any Indian who may be paid the amount of his pro rata share of the tribal properties as herein provided shall thereafter have no further

interest in or claim upon the tribal property or funds of the tribe of which he is a member, and be required to sign an agreement in writing to this effect, and shall be dropped from the rolls of said tribe.'

"In my judgment, should this paragraph become law in its present form, it will be impossible for any member of the Sioux Tribe of Indians to take advantage of the provisions of section 1 without at the same time signing away any contingent or other right that the individual Indian might have to his otherwise pro rata share of any sum or sums that may be ultimately recovered as the result of the proposed suit authorized by the act of June 3, 1920. The act of June 3, 1920, as you may recall, is the Gandy Act, authorizing the Sioux Tribe to sue in the Court of Claims to establish their rights, if any, to recover damages under the treaty of 1868, by which they ceded the Black Hills to the United States."

That is all I care to present, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else that wants to be heard on section 1, that the Secretary of the Interior be authorized, in his discretion, to cause an appraisement to be made to determine the total value of the lands, timber, money, and other property belonging to any tribe of Indians other than the Five Civilized Tribes and the Osage Tribe in Oklahoma?

Mr. SLOAN. I would like to be heard, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS L. SLOAN, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. You may give you full name, Mr. Sloan.

Mr. SLOAN. My name is Thomas L. Sloan. I am a member of the Omaha Tribe of Indians, of Nebraska. I would be interested in the disposition of tribal property to watever extent there may be any left, belonging to the Omaha Tribe of Indians, to be disposed of.

The first objection to the bill which myself and a number of other Indians who have met with me desire to have considered is that of the three appraisers to be appointed one should be appointed absolutely by the Indians, elected by a majority vote, because there is a general feeling among us, and based on experience, that those chosen entirely under the domination of the Indian Bureau follow the dictates of either the representative of the Indian Bureau or the representative appointed from the State, and not for the best interests of the Indian. And that, as this is a final appraisement of Indian property, upon which it may ultimately be disposed of, it is desired that Indians have a fair representation and as just an appraisement of the property as possible. That is the first item to which I wish to call attention.

The second is this: The provision that after an Indian has signed the receipt for the share that he is to get in the present property under the appraisement as set forth that the Secretary of the Interior, although the Indian may be a competent Indian or a patent-in-fee Indian, he may be declared to be incompetent. Now, then, it seems to me that that leads to the extreme extent of disregarding the absolute human rights.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by being declared incompetent; do you mean dropping from the roll?

Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; in other words, if I sign a receipt after I received this money, the Secretary of the Interior might arbitrarily declare me incompetent, and refuse to pay it. And the worst is, they are doing that without authority of law.

The CHAIRMAN. What provision gives that authority?

Mr. SLOAN. The bottom of page 2, line 5 of the proviso.

Now, they are doing these things now. Indians are arbitrarily placed backward and forward upon the competency and incompetency roll, as suits the convenience of the agent, without hearing. And their property is disposed of in various ways, out of which complications come, which are seriously detrimental to them.

The CHAIRMAN. That does not declare him incompetent.

"That the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, decline to pay the pro rata share as herein stated if he should deem it not for the best interests of said Indian, notwithstanding the Indian may possess a certificate of competency or have received a patent in fee for his or her allotment."

His competency is left intact.

Mr. SLOAN. Well, it is upon that basis. If he chooses to withhold it, it must be for some reason that he, himself, declares. And that is what they have

been doing with the Omaha and Winnebago Indians. The Omaha and Winnebago Indians are citizens. They are paying taxes, not only upon their personal property but upon their allotted lands. Now, then, they are interfered with in making leases out of which they could make money, on fair rentals; they are prevented from making collections. And provisions in leases are made by the agents, and others, so that they are in want. And they are prevented from exercising their business that it is necessary for them to develop and become civilized. As a matter of fact, they are going back now, under a supervision that declares arbitrarily one way or the other, and if it goes to the extent of permitting that by authority of law, the Indian will be absolutely a nonentity.

Now, then, among the Omaha Tribe, numbering some 12,040 people, among whom I have lived, they have on deposit individual sums amounting to about $230,000. Now, during the past few years if the banks had been made to pay to the Indians the money they needed, they would have gone broke, probably. But it seems to me that the banks have been taken care of, and the Indians have been permitted to be in want with thousands of dollars to their credit. And the arbitrary manner in which the department or its representatives are permitting these things is beyond reason. They are supposed to be controlled under a reasonable law.

Senator HARRELD. Right there, just a moment. The first part of this section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to pay this money, out of the tribal funds belonging to the Indians, to any enrolled member of the tribe who has received a certificate of competency or a patent in fee; then comes the provision "that the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, decline to pay the pro rata share as herein stated if he should deem it not for the best interests of said Indian, notwithstanding the Indian may possess a certificate of competency or have received a patent in case of his or her allotment." That is what you object to?

Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HARRELD. You think after he has received a certificate of competency or patent in fee he should have his funds?

Mr. SLOAN. Yes; certificates of competency or patents in fee are not granted except upon showing of competency. It is discretionary with the Secretary.

I might say with reference to that, by way of explanation, that a few years ago I came down here to present a case to the Supreme Court of the United States, and while here I made a request of the Indian Bureau that a patent in fee upon 80 acres of my own allotment be granted. I wished it particularly so that I could get a credit in purchasing other lands adjoining mine. I had to go before a competency commission and have them pass on my competency before I was permitted to get it, and then by the time that was done the land was sold, and I was out $3,000 or $4,000 in consequence. The CHAIRMAN. What year was that, Mr. Sloan?

Mr. SLOAN. About 1910. I could call your attention to more recent things in the matters of competency. I guess I had better go into that with some detail, because it is the most recent things that affect particularly the Indians in the manner in which I think you gentlemen ought to know.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps it would be better for you to confine yourself now to the provisions of this bill and then come back to that, if we have time, later on.

Mr. SLOAN. If it would be more satisfactory to the committee, I might make my statement with reference to that later. But I thought it might reach this competency proposition. But, if you wish, I will make that statement later on.

Senator OWEN. The effect of your objection is that if they have been once declared competent, you do not wish their competency subsequently denied? Mr. SLOAN. Absolutely. I have quite a lengthy story that I could tell, if I tell it all, showing how some of these things have operated and how detrimental they have been. But if the committee desires, and it is required, I will without delay pass on to the other points I wish to speak about.

Senator HARRELD. Personally, if competency has been ascertained once, I am not in favor of taking it away.

The CHAIRMAN. There are a good many here who want to be heard on this bill, and if it is equally convenient to you, you might proceed to the objections you wish to urge to this bill.

Mr. SLOAN. An objection to that part which Senator Norbeck has called attention, on page 3, with reference to the receipt cutting off other things

that the Indians may have every other interest that the Indians may havethrough a Court of Claims decision, or otherwise, it seems to me is absolutely inequitable and illegal.

Here is a guardian of the United States holding property in trust, and after the allotment has been made, the balance of the fund there is placed to the credit of the members of the tribe, in equal shares. Now, then, receipts generally are not given for any other purpose than that for which they are actually given, and a man ought not to be required by law to give a receipt for something he does not get. Neither should a guardian deal with his ward in a manner which requires that, because in law and equity, whatever there may be acquired in equity or otherwise, these other members of the tribe ought to have it in equal share and ought to have the same opportunity to get that.

Senator CURTIS. That objection can be met with a proviso that nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any hereinafter acquired money or property.

Mr. SLOAN. I felt impressed by the legislation in the past, such as the Dawes bill, such as Senator Curtis has helped to draft, that where an Indian became a citizen it did not affect his rights to other tribal property. It seems to me that is a just basis, but it seems to me there is a tendency to get away from that in the Indian Bureau. I feel since they have been a treaty-making power, and recognized as that, in the first instance they ought to be fairly dealt with and be heard in everything that deals with and pertains to that tribe.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else who desires to be heard on section 1?
Mr. SNYDER. I would like to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN L. SNYDER, IRVING, N. Y.

Mr. SNYDER. I wish to ask the chairman of the committee about the language and construction of section 1. I am a member of the Seneca Tribe of New York Indians, otherwise known as the Six Nations of New York Indians. It seems from the construction it is specific and evidently covers the Indians located in New York.

Now, if this act is allowed to pass, it will raise many complications with us, in view of the former congressional acts confirming the business transactions up there between the white men and the Indians, which are with reference to tribal property. And the division as provided for in this subdivision only would be unjust and unequal for the time being, inasmuch as one of the leases runs for 99 years and would remain the common property until the end of that period, unless terminated by Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you referring to what Mr. Sloan just spoke of, the signing of a receipt?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. No; I do not think you understand him. He is referring to the effect this legislation would have-not a receipt-but the effect this legislation would have upon the Six Nations of New York who hold their land in an entirely different way than that held by other Indians in other sections of the United States, and who have, under acts of Congress, made leases for long periods with white people. I should judge from what he says, if it applies to the New York Indians at all, his objection is that it affects their existing rights. Is that your objection to it?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes; practically that.

Senator OWEN. What you want is an exemption of the New York Indians; is. that right?

Mr. SNYDER. I am not in position to say.

Senator OWEN. You are not in position to say? Mr. SNYDER. I am not in position to say. While I admit before this committee that while we would like to have the Department of the Interior to take us over to ascertain our status and provide for an adjudication of the inheritance cases in that department.

Senator OWEN. Mr. Snyder, all we are discussing now is section 1 of the bill, which has to do with the appraisement of the property of any tribes of Indians except the Five Civilized Tribes and the Osages. What have you to suggest with regard to that; do you want the Senecas excepted?

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

34157-23--2

Senator CURTIS. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it is hardly fair to ask the witness to go on and express an opinion with reference to some of these matters which are largely legal matters. These people hold their property, my impression was, and Mr. Meritt has verified it, that they hold their property as a corporation, and the courts of New York have jurisdiction over it. And it is hardly fair to have him express an opinion about disposing of it when it is held by a corporation.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the very purpose of the question. What you want, you say, is to have the Senecas exempted from this section?

Mr. SNYDER. I don't see how it could be well applied under this.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we have your point.

Mr. SNYDER. I want to say, in addition to that, that our title is not like those in the West.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. SNYDER. That the United States does not take the ultimate title to the land.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else to be heard on this section? [After a pause.] If not, we will pass on to section 2.

Mr. Commissioner, does the Indian Department want to say anything on section 1?

Mr. BURKE. Yes; I would like to be heard briefly, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES H. BURKE, COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Mr. BURKE, I do not want the committee to get the idea, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the bureau did not want to be heard on section 1 of this bill.

I take, I may say, some personal pride in having had something to say about the framing of section 1 in this bill. The purpose of section 1 is to do the opposite of what Mr. Sloan mentioned to the committee. I want to make it possible, instead of distributing the tribal funds in per capita payments of $20 or $50 or $100 at a time, which really does nobody any substantial good, to make it possible for the Indian who has reached a stage of competency to be able, upon his own application, voluntarily made, to receive what represents a per capita share of the tribal estate, based on what it may be worth at the time.

Take, if you please, the Chippewa Indians. Under the provisions of the treaty the fund would not be distributed, if you follow literally the treaty, until 50 years after the treaty was made. The treaty was made in 1889; the allotment has not been made as yet, and consequently the treaty has not yet run. We have among the Chippewa Indians-and I use them as an illustration- -just as competent men as any men who have had any education. They should not be under any supervision. They should be absolutely and completely emancipated. And that is exactly what is contemplated by this bill.

And I would say, if you are going to make the amendments that have been suggested, I would much prefer there should be no legislation. It is, I believe, advisable that after an Indian has received what represents a fair value of an individual interest that he ought to be thereafter eliminated entirely from the tribe, because, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, much of the confusion and turmoil among the Indians to-day comes from the class of Indians that have been declared competent, that have had an education, that have dissipated everything that they have received from the sale of their allotment, and they usually sell it very promptly after they receive a patent in fee, and then they continue to affiliate with the Indians and live upon them and off of them, and are agitators and trouble makers, and they never get anywhere so far as their own success and advancement is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Will it inconvenience you if I ask you a question.
Mr. BURKE. It will not, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the objection, where an Indian signs his receipt for the full share of the property that is in the tribal possession, and after he signs the receipt, what is the objection to that Indian getting his pro rata or getting the full amount of the property that may be coming in the tribal

Mr. BURKE (interposing). Mr. Chairman, apparently you have not caught the point. In determining what is the value of an individual share I would include not only the property and the money that might be belonging to the tribe but any possible source of funds that might come thereafter from any sources, such as the case referred to by the Senator from South Dakota.