this land. Your bill, if enacted into law, would permit every tribe of Indians to sue the Government for damage to their lands and to their property and subject the Government to endless litigation.

Mr. GRAVES. I am speaking only for that cession.

Mr. ROACH. I would like to know what sort of proof would be submitted against the Government in a case of this kind.

Mr. HUDSON. The attorney wants to incorporate into the record part of a page here.

Mr. HASTINGS. Is that a report upon that particular matter?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes; on this particular matter, and growing out of the negotiation of the treaty of 1889: The Leech Lake Pillagers, before they signed the treaty of 1889. asked Mr. Rice if he would not settle that old score.

Mr. HASTINGS. I would like not an excerpt but all that he tells. If it takes more than one page I would prefer rather than to have one statement to have all of the statement, if it is not too long.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would very much rather have it that way.
Mr. HASTINGS. How long is the report?

Mr. HENDERSON. A page and one-half referring to that report; but in the council proceedings the question was raised several times by different members of the bands, and there would be a page in three or four different places, all bearing on the same question.

Mr. HASTINGS. The three or four pages that you refer to will be all in that report referring to it, either favorably or unfavorably? Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

Mr. HASTINGS. I do not want ex-parte excerpts. It is better to to give you more space to put it all in.

Mr. HUDSON. I think the whole proposition as far as it is germane to the record should go in.

Mr. ROACH. I doubt if it would be wise to encumber the record at this time with any portion of the report. We are going to go into this subject thoroughly and have the records of the Interior Department brought here as to the former proceedings in relation to this claim.

Mr. HASTINGS. It might enable us to determine whether we want to go into it any further.

Mr. ROACH. I have no disposition not to go into it, but I think if we are going into it at all we should go into it quite thoroughly.

Mr. KNUTSON. Is it not a fact, Mr. Roach, that the Court of Claims has heretofore limited reimbursements in a case of this kind and similar transactions to $1.25 an acre?

Mr. ROACH. If this proposed suit to establish this claim is going to be limited to the value of the land, then to my mind that would present a question that this committee should determine after an examination of the treaties and the records of the transactions in the transfer of this land, so that we could determine whether or not they should be paid any additional price for this land. Perhaps there is enough justice so that the Court of Claims could determine that question. If it is going to be opened wide by all sorts of damages, then I would like to know about how they expect to prove damages other than the value of the land.

Mr. KNUTSON. I would be perfectly willing to have the committee limit the amount or to amend the bill in such other ways as they see fit, of course, in order to safeguard the interests of the Government.

Mr. HUDSON. Is there anything more on this that we can do this. morning?

Mr. KNUTSON. May I ask that this be taken up at a later date, after you have had opportunity to look into it?

Mr. HUDSON. What is the pleasure of the subcommittee?

Mr. ROACH. We ought to have a record of what payments were made for these lands. We had one bill in the committee here last session which was a jurisdictional bill, and after putting in two or three days on it we found where complete payment had been made on the very subject matter we were considering. I do not want to waste time on this bill or on these bills. I am perfectly willing to hear those that are meritorious and go into the facts, but it seems to me on the face of the question that if it is a meritorious claim for the value of the land it ought to be made up into a bill and presented to the Interior Department, who have the records and a history of the case, and a hearing before the department to put it up to this committee whether we want to pay it or not.

Mr. HUDSON. From your viewpoint there is nothing further that can be done.

Mr. ROACH. Unless some one else has a statement to make this morning.

Mr. KNUTSON. Do you care to be heard, Mr. Butcher?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BUTCHER, LEECH LAKE INDIAN

Mr. BUTCHER. I have not much to say on this question, because these gentlemen who have spoken on it said what I know of it. I want to say, gentlemen, that the Indians' feeling is that they are overreached as far back as I remember, 40 years. I clearly remember that far, that they have been hammering along trying to have the Government justify them on this particular case but failing to do that they have not given up unto this day, and now the Indians think why they have been overreached by the Government is at the time the Government was going to open that to the white settlement instead of going to the Pillager Band of Indians and telling them, "Here, we are going to open this to white settlement if you are willing to do this." They did not do that. Now, I believe that this claim ought to be justified to the Indians, as far as I know, and I took that matter up with Mr. Henderson. I felt he was capable of handling this matter, and I wish this question to be well looked into so that it would be appreciated at home and to tell my people what the outcome of it is.

Mr. KNUTSON. You feel that the Pillager Band of Indians has a just claim, do you not?

Mr. BUTCHER. A just claim.

Mr. ROACH. What do you think their claim is for, for the land that this band failed to settle on, or just what is the nature of the claim you have in mind? Is it that you did not receive enough pay for that land?

Mr. BUTCHER. It was for the Indians' purpose. That was the understanding between the Indians and the United States Govern

ment.

Mr. HUDSON. In other words, you feel that if the land was not going to go to other Indians, the Menominees, for instance, that they

should have a larger price for the land that was going to go for white settlement. I will put it this way. You feel that your people made the cession of the land because the Indians were going in there to live?

Mr. BUTCHER. Yes.

Mr. HUDSON. But inasmuch as the Indians did not go in there to live it was of more value than what they received and the Government should have paid them more when they opened it to white settlement.

Mr. BUTCHER. They should have come to us to make other terms with us.

Mr. HUDSON. Is there anything further?

Mr. KNUTSON. You would be satisfied with $1.25 an acre?

Mr. BUTCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KNUTSON. You do not ask for any damages for the constant hardships which the Sioux bands worked upon you? You merely want settlement for the land?

Mr. HUDSON. In that connection if the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, made examination and went all over this matter and came to you with a report of it, you would be as well satisfied to have this thrown into the courts?

Mr. BUTCHER. Yes. I have engaged and employed an attorney and I propose to have an attorney in this case, because for many years back I have tried to handle it myself, that is, with the Indians as an Indian, and have failed to do it, and never made any headway, and I propose to have an attorney in this case.

Mr. HUDSON. What is the pleasure of the committee?

Mr. ROACH. I would like to have some information from the commissioner with regard to payments made for this tract of land, what the total amounts of payments were, and the circumstances.

Mr. HUDSON. We will adjourn the hearing until another day when we may have the commissioner before us.

Mr. HASTINGS. Would it not be a better plan to refer this bill down there and request a report because it involves going through a great many records?

Mr. ROACH. Probably.

Mr. HASTINGS. If this bill is referred to the commissioner we could ask him for a report.

Mr. ROACH. That may give us the information we seek.

Mr. HUDSON. The report I read from states that "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 137, Fifty-first Congress, first session; also reported May 26, 1916, Senate Report 545, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.

Mr. HENDERSON. I have a report which I shall be glad to submit to the subcommittee.

Mr. ROACH. Is it very lengthy?

Mr. HENDERSON. No. It is very brief, three or four pages, and I have another of two pages.

Mr. ROACH. I will be glad to have them incorporated in the record, and if there is anyhting further required, then we could take the matter up.

Mr. HASTINGS. I do not think we will be encumbering the record if we also have the page and a half from the other report. It puts it together and we can judge whether to give it our consideration. Mr. ROACH. If we have these reports incorporated, we ought to have the page and a half in the record also.

Mr. KNUTSON. May I have permission also for Mr. Henderson to prepare a short statement for the committee, showing wherein previous reports overlooked certain phases of this question? Mr. ROACH. To file with this committee?

Mr. HENDERSON. I will put them in the form of a brief.

Mr. HUDSON. The understanding is that these be incorporated in the record.

(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet again at the call of the chairman.)

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, March 7, 1924. The subcommittee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Grant M. Hudson, presiding.

There were also present as members of the subcommittee, Hon. Sydney C. Roach and Hon. William W. Hastings.

Mr. HUDSON. We will proceed with the further consideration of H. R. 6493, the bill authorizing the Pillager bands of Chippewa Indians, residing in the State of Minnesota, to submit their claims to the Court of Claims. Mr. Knutson, author of the bill, will be here in a few minutes.

We have had presented for the record a brief submitted by Mr. Daniel B. Henderson, attorney for the representative of the Pillager Bands. This brief is here submitted for the record.

STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM

In 1847, pursuant to its established policy, the United States desired to remove the Menominee Tribe of Indians from their home country in Wisconsin to lands west of the Mississippi River; and, to this end, sought to acquire from the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians suitable territory in, or near, the central part of Minnesota, which might be given in exchange for the Menominee lands.

The Pillagers were one of the largest divisions of the Minnesota Chippewa, and occupied lands toward the western part of the State of Minnesota.

At that time the Menominee tribal lands were virtually the only unceded area in the State of Wisconsin, whereas the area of the present State of Minnesota was, for the most part, unceded. Only two comparatively small cessions had been made by the Indians in Minnesota prior to 1847, both of which were in the extreme eastern part of the State, north and east of the Mississippi River; one by the Sioux, the other by the Chippewa.

Thus, at that time, the north half of the State was nearly all unceded Chippewa country; the south half, unceded Sioux country. Between the Sioux and the Chippewa fierce warfare had raged for generations.

A rough sketch of each of the two States, Minnesota and Wisconsin, illustrating the foregoing conditions, is attached hereto.

On August 21, 1847, under foregoing conditions, the United States negotiated a so-called "peace and friendship" treaty with the Pillager Bands of Chippewa. The real object of the Government was to acquire from the Pillagers about 700,000 acres, lands lying west of the Mississippi River, on which to locate the Menominees, and thereby assist in securing from the latter the desired relinquichment of Indian title to the unceded lands in Wisconsin, for white settlement. The representation then made to the Pillagers, however, was that the Govern

ment wanted to move the Menominees to the Pillager country, in order to establish therein a friendly tribe, between the Chippewa and the Sioux, and thus prevent and abolish hostilities that had long harassed both tribes.

This suggestion, of course, offered a strong inducement to the Pillagers and led to the cession by them of the lands sought by the United States. This was the first treaty ever made by the Pillagers, who were entirely inexperienced and untrained in such negotiations. They were ignorant, unlettered people, and relied on the honesty and integrity of their white friend, H. M. Rice, one of the two commissioners chosen by the United States to represent the Government in negotiating this treaty.

Commissioner Rice told the Indians, and made them believe, that the land they were ceding was not to be used by the whites but was for the use of the Menominee Indians, who were friends and neighbors of the Chippewa, speaking a similar language. The cession was made by the Pillagers under the foregoing conditions. By the treaty of October 18, 1848 (9 Stat. 952) the United States, having taken the steps above mentioned to extinguish the title to the said tract of Pillager lands, granted the same to the Menominees in exchange for all the remaining unceded Menominee lands in the State of Wisconsin.

The treaty of 1848 allowed the Menominees two years in which to move to their new home in Minnesota. In 1850, the Menominees sent a delegation to examine the Pillager lands; and adverse reports were made by the delegation; and the Menominees refused to move from Wisconsin.

In 1852, after further discussion and negotiation, the United States finally decided that a small reservation should be provided for the Menominees and that the tribe remain in Wisconsin.

Under the treaty of May 12, 1854 (10 Stat. 1064) the Menominees receded to the United States the Pillager lands acquired from the Government under the treaty of 1848, and a small Menominee reservation was established in Wisconsin for the latter tribe.

Instead of reconveying the Pillager lands to the Pillager Bands, or making some new agreement with these original owners, the United States, without consent of the Pillagers, opened the lands to white settlement.

The Pillagers, it seems, were made to believe that the transaction, designated by the Government in the treaty as a cession, was in fact a "loan" of their lands for the use of the Menominees; and the Indians always so spoke of it.

NOTE. The tract A, B, C, D shown on sketch of Wisconsin represents the reservation set apart for the Menominees under the treaty of May 12, 1854.

LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE CLAIM

Under the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. 642) the commission appointed to negotiate with the several bands of Minnesota Chippewa Indians for cession of their lands in the State, held councils with the Pillagers at Leach Lake, Cass Lake, and Lake Winnebagoshish, from August 8 to September 2, 1889.

The chairman of the commission appointed to negotiate agreements with the Minnesota Chippewas under the said act was Henry M. Rice, the same man who had represented the United States in negotiating the Pillager treaty of August 21, 1847.

A stenographic copy was made of the council proceedings and the minutes of the council were preserved and printed as a part of the report of the commission to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, which report was transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior, and by him to the President of the United States, and by the President of the United States to the Senate and House of Representatives. (See H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 247, 51st Cong., 1st sess.)

Before the Pillager Indians would proceed with a discussion of further cession of lands to the United States the spokesman for the Indians called upon Mr. Rice to explain to them why the Government had never settled with them for the lands loaned to the Government for the use of the Menominees under the treaty of 1847.

A copy of Executive Document No. 247 is filed herewith and the portions of the council proceedings relating to this subject are marked for the convenience of your committee and will be found on pages 1, 2, 4, 17, 18, 19, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128.

The Chippewa Commission in making their report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs referred to the Pillager claim and concluded with these words:

"We can not too strongly urge that the Government cause this matter to be carefully investigated, and in some way allow the Pillagers what may be found to