Mr. KNUTSON. Those Chippewa matters ought to be cleaned up. They have been dragging along for years. Mr. HUDSON. Your thought is that H. R. 27 and 28 really ought to be combined in one bill.~ Mr. BURKE. I think so. Mr. HUDSON. They cover the same proposition? Mr. ROACH. They ought to be heard together, then. Mr. HUDSON. H. R. 28 ought not to stand alone before the House. Mr. KNUTSON. I may say we have quite a delegation of Chippewas down here, but they are not situated as are the Osages. They are not receiving $4,000 or $5,000 now. They are down here at their own expense, and in justice to them I would like to ask the subcommittee that the two bills, H. R. 27 and 28 be taken up at the earliest possible moment so that these people may return home. Mr. BURKE. You could hear them on H. R. 28 before the report comes here. Mr. KNUTSON. You could make a statement on H. R. 28? Mr. BURKE. I have made a general statement, and said that H. R. 28 is based on the report of the commission. Mr. Mark Burns, who is a member of the tribe, is here and had much to do with making the report upon which the claim is based that is represented by H. R. 28. Mr. HUDSON. Is it your desire to have these men heard now? Mr. HASTINGS. How many representatives of the tribe do you want to be heard? I do not think the committee will desire any additional information on H. R. 27, except as it may throw light upon H. R. 28, so far as I am concerned. Mr. HUDSON. If these men are here we might hear them briefly on H. R. 28. Mr. HASTINGS. I am perfectly willing to hear them on H. R. 28. It is not necessary to go over H. R. 27 except as it affects H. R. 28. Mr. BURKE. Unless somebody wants to ask questions specifically about H. R. 27. Mr. ROACH. I do. There is no possibility of any of the land involved in H. R. 26 being included in the land on which the timber is situated under bill H. R. 27. Mr. BURKE. Not at all. H. R. 26 has no relation. They are not in any way related. Mr. ROACH. Some of these lands in H. R. 27 were wrongfully classified as agricultural lands. This is largely for the record. These matters will have to be explained on the floor and very minutely, in my opinion. What information have you as to these agricultural lands which were wrongfully classified not being included in any of the lands settled for in H. R. 26? Mr. BURKE. Mr. Burns, who was a member of the commission, can answer that. Mr. HASTINGS. How many Chippewa Indians do you want to have heard on the two bills, H. R. 27 and 28, particularly with reference to 28? Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Coffey is here. STATEMENT OF F. W. PEAKE, OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. Mr. PEAKE. I have to say that I represent the Chippewas of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Mr. James I. Coffey will speak for us. Mr. HASTINGS. Do you have any other representatives here besides Mr. Coffey, representing any of the factions of the Chippewas? Mr. PEAKE. Mr. Coffey represents the northern Chippewas. Mr. BURKE. There is a Red Lake Indian here, too, and the attorney of the Red Lake Indians is here. Mr. COFFEY. I have nothing particularly to say with reference to this bill. Mr. KNUTSON. Is it satisfactory to you? Mr. COFFEY. So far as I understand it, yes; it is. Mr. BURKE. H. R. 27? Mr. COFFEY. Yes. I did not know the details of this bill, but so far as the statement has been made by the commissioner it is satisfactory to us. I have not studied the details of the bill. Mr. HUDSON. Were you one of the commission who appraised the lands? Mr. COFFEY. No, sir. Mr. PEAKE. I have read over the bill in regard to the Minnesota forest reserve and I have to say, in regard to Mr. Burns's report, that we, as Chippewa Indians, as far as I know, are absolutely satisfied with it. Mr. BURKE. I think I ought to say, Mr. Chairman, that the reason that H. R. 28 ought to be very fully gone into is that there are those who assert they should be paid a great deal more than is contemplated in H. R. 28, and it opens up a pretty big question, and I want those of the Indians who have given the matter any thought and have any definite ideas in regard to it to have opportunity to be heard; and, as I said, we ought not to rush H. R. 27 and 28. There is not any question in my mind but what 27 ought to be reported and passed, just the same as 26, but it is so related to H. R. 28 that they ought to be considered together, and yet that is for the committee to decide. Mr. HASTINGS. When will the other representatives be heard? Where is Mr. Burns? Mr. KNUTSON. He has been telegraphed for. Mr. HUDSON. What is the pleasure of the subcommittee on H. R. 27 and 28? Mr. ROACH. I move that further hearings be postponed to the call of the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. HASTINGS. I second it. Mr. BURKE. H. R. 26 will be referred to the full committee, as a matter of course. Mr. HUDSON. H. R. 26 has been ordered reported to the full committee. STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL B. HENDERSON Mr. HENDERSON. As the commissioner has indicated, I stand as attorney for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, and the matter included in H. R. 27 and 28 affect all bands of Chippewa Indians within the State of Minnesota and allows a very large sum of money, and some difficult questions, perhaps, will be discovered by your committee when they go into the facts. I simply wanted to ascertain, if I could at this time, whether, before a further hearing, there will be any attempt to have more of the separate bands represented, or whether, in the estimation of the committee, there are enough representatives here at the present time. I may be pardoned for saying that I am more or less acquainted, rather well acquainted, with conditions, and I am prepared to say if you will hear Mr. Mark Burns, you will hear an expert, so far as it is covered by H. R. 27 and 28. There is here also the duly authorized representative of the Red Lake Indians, Mr. Peter Graves, who can speak very fully for his branch of the Chippewa people in the State. There is also a well qualified representative of the Pillager Band of Leech Lake Indians, of the Ottertail Pillagers here, in the person of William Butcher. Mr. Coffey has already spoken to the committee on the subject and I see in the room William Madison, a White Earth Chippewa. I do not know whether he is here to speak with authority or not, but it raises the question whether this committee wants a representative from other divisions of the Minnesota Chippewa people, of which there are several more than those represented here the divisions that were treated with by the commission under the act of 1889. behalf of the Red Lake Band I would like to say that the Red Lake delegates want to get back home as early as possible before spring work begins and to have a further hearing as early as convenient before the subcommittee. On Mr. HUDSON. Are there any representatives of the Chippewas here who want to be heard this morning, who are anxious to get back? If so, the committee can hear them this morning on bills H. R. 27 and 28 rather than to keep them waiting here. Mr. HASTINGS. I think we better have the report of the department. It will analyze these claims. Mr. KNUTSON. Would it be possible to hold hearings the next week on these two bills? Mr. BURKE. Just as soon as we are ready to report and Mr. Burns comes here we will notify you. Mr. KNUTSON. Could not some member of the general council be present. Mr. BURKE. I was going to make the suggestion that a letter be prepared to go out from this committee to the superintendent at Cass Lake that these bills are under consideration and to advise any interested parties that they will be given an opportunity to be heard if they wish to appear; also that Mr. Ed. L. Rogers, of Walker, Minn., who is the chairman of the so-called general council of the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, be notified in line with what I just suggested; that is, that the superintendent be advised? Mr. HUDSON. That possibly would preclude any hearing next week. 92815-24 Mr. BURKE. No. You can go ahead with your hearing and let them come in. I think the bill should not be reported too promptly, as long as anyone interested wants to be heard. Mr. HUDSON. That is a wise precaution. Mr. BURKE. The committee will govern itself as to people who want time to come and be heard, but in the meantime you can go ahead. Mr. ROACH. I am not sufficiently familiar with all the various factions of the Chippewas who have been mentioned to-day and in past hearings of the committee, but as one member I agree with the commissioner's statement that all interested parties, of whatever faction, should be given timely notice of these hearings, so that they can not say in years to come that they never had a chance to present their claims, whatever they might be. These things ought to be made final some time. Mr. HASTINGS. I agree with that. Mr. HUDSON. We have disposed this morning of H. R. 26 by reporting it unanimously to the committee, and have postponed H. R. 27 and 28 for future hearings. Mr. HUDSON. H. R. 6493, introduced by Mr. Knutson, reads as follows: [H. R. 6493, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session] A BILL Authorizing the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians, residing in the State of Minnesota, to submit claims to the Court of Claims Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all claims of whatsoever nature, both legal and equitable, which the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians, in the State of Minnesota, or any of them, may have against the United States shall be submitted to the Court of Claims, with right of appeal by either party to the Supreme Court of the United States for determination; and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Court of Claims to hear and determine any and all such claims and to render final judgment thereon. The Court of Claims shall have authority to determine and adjudge the rights, both legal and equitable, of the said Pillager Bands and of the United States in the premises, notwithstanding lapse of time or statutes of limitation. The suit or suits instituted hereunder shall be begun by the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota as parties plaintiff against the United States as the party defendent. The petition or petitions may be verified by the attorney or attorneys employed in said claim or claims by the Pillager Bands, upon information and belief as to the facts therein alleged, and no other verification shall be necessary: Provided, That upon the final determination of such suit or suits the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to fix and determine a reasonable fee, not to exceed 10 per centum of the recovery, to be paid to the attorney or attorneys employed by the said Pillager Bands, and the same shall be included in the decree and shall be paid out of any sum or sums found due said bands. The report of the department reads as follows: Hon. HOMER P. SNYDER, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTErior, Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SNYDER: Further reference is made to your letter of February 1, 1924, submitting a copy of H. R. 6493, A bill authorizing the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians, residing in the State of Minnesota, to submit claims to the Court of Claims," in which you ask for a report:, Bills having a similar purpose have heretofore been introduced in both Houses of Congress, and reports from this department have been submitted. See report dated May 31, 1890, printed as Senate Executive Document No. 137, Fifty-first Congress, first session; also report dated May 26, 1916, Senate Report No. 545, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session. These reports contain all there is available with reference to this alleged claim. It does not appear that there is any legal merit in the claim, as the treaty of August 21, 1847, upon which the claim is based, states that the "cession was complete and the consideration fully agreed upon and paid." If your committee should conclude upon investigation that there is any merit in the claim of these Indians, it would seem that it would be unnecessary to refer it to the Court of Claims, as the Congress can determine what would be a proper amount to compensate the Indians and make an appropriation to pay same. Very truly yours, It is a jurisdictional bill. HUBERT WORK. Mr. ROACH. This involves quite an inquiry into the affairs of the Minnesota Indians. I doubt whether we have time to consider it Mr. KNUTSON. Would you let Mr. Henderson make his statement? STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL B. HENDERSON Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, the report of the department on this bill is worthy of very close examination and consideration. It was written under the impression evidently that there was something in the treaty itself under which the claim arises that declares against the validity of the claim. That seems to have been an unintentional oversight. I have gone into your book case to see if I could find a copy of the treaty but the volume with that treaty in it is missing. You will find, if you examine the treaty of 1847, which is a treaty made by the United States with the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians, that for a nominal consideration, 700,000 acres of land were taken by the United States under an expressed agreement with a clear understanding between the Government, the representatives of the Government, and the Indians, that the land was to be used for the benefit of the Chippewas of that part of the State to cut them off from the Sioux with whom they were at war at that time. It was the case of a cession of land for a specific, definite purpose, which purpose was later abandoned by the United States and the lands treated as if made an unconditional cession. It can be easily shown to this committee, if you had time to go into it, that the consideration paid was not only inadequate but nominal, but the Government took the land subsequently opened it for white settlement and received for it very largely through settlement, a consideration which will probably determine the amount, or go a long way towards determining the amount, of recovery that the Pillager Band, if they are allowed to go to the courts, might make in the case, What I think the department had in mind in preparing this report was the idea that is found in the old reports. This matter has been reported two or three times by the department, and distinction is drawn in one of these reports between legal claims and equitable claims. The idea drawn out of these reports is that whilst the Indians might have a good equitable claim they have no technical legal claim, Mr. ROACH. Has the department ever directly passed on these claims? Mr. HENDERSON. No, sir; I do not think the department would be willing to do that. |