time. They were not selling anything except the white and Norway pine.

Mr. HUDSON. Is it not a fact that all over the northern country at that time hardwood timber was really not considered as merchantable? The market was very low, if there was any market for it. Were not people burning it up to clear land, giving it away if they could?

Mr. WAKEFIELD. Well, I do not know just how that is. I suppose this other mixed timber was not so valuable as it is at the present time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Have you any further statement to make?

Mr. WAKEFIELD. The only way that the Indians would be willing to settle for those lands is to first receive 80 acres additional allotment. That would make 160 acres to each man, woman, and child, as promised them by the commission who made the treaty with them. Mr. HUDSON. There is a new angle. Your claim then, if I understand it, is not only a claim from the council you represent for this jack pine and hardwood timber, but also a claim for payments for lands amounting to 80 acres. Is that right?

Mr. WAKEFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HUDSON. Do you think, as a matter of equity, that you should have payment for an additional allotment of 80 acres, or do you want the 80 acres and not payment for it?

Mr. WAKEFIELD. We want 160 as promised us by the commission that made the treaty.

Mr. HASTINGS. You get 80, and another 80 would make 160.

Mr. WAKEFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HASTINGS. What was that act?

Mr. BURKE. I think Mr. Wakefield is trying to tell you what the Indians are claiming. Mr. Coffey can make it very clear that the Indians steadfastly claim that they never did sell the reservation, at least, as far as the forest reserve is concerned.

Mr. HASTINGS. That is their construction of the act.

Mr. BURKE. It is their contention that it is their land and they object to having it taken at $1.25 an acre, because they say it is worth more now.

Mr. HASTINGS. If Mr. Wakefield wants to prepare a statement showing his contention about it, I think we should give him permission to file it, in addition to his testimony.

Mr. HUDSON. Yes; and the stenographer may insert it at the beginning of his testimony.

Mr. WAKEFIELD. If I was to be heard again I would put it down in writing.

Mr. BURKE. I think we ought to have it.

Mr. HUDSON. You may do so, and it will be placed in the record. We want all of you to have just as full an opportunity as possible to present this matter.

Mr. WAKEFIELD. That is what we wish.

Mr. HUDSON. That is what we are here for.

92815-24 -5

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. PETER GRAVES

Mr. GRAVES. I was thinking about the estimate of this timber. I had in mind to ask Mark Burns if he knows anything about the records of the cruisers who are employed in this Minnesota National Forest. About the year 1910 I was aware of the fact that these forestry men were estimating the different classes of timber by subdivisions of 40 acres or less, and there certainly must be records of those appraisals of that class of timber. I think Mark Burns would know if there is, and if he used any reference to those estimates, what I want to bring up is that if there is to be a reestimate made of this timber, the Indians would have to pay it. I believe that my people would be perfectly satisfied for Mark Burns, Doctor Wooster, and the other member to use those estimates that may be obtainable from the Department of Agriculture, and see whether that appraisal is anywhere near those appraisements that I have mentioned, that I presume are on record.

As to the Red Lake, I think I am aware that there have been, possibly, two estimates of timber made on the Red Lake Reservation. There certainly must be records of those estimates somewhere. If you take any timber off there is a record of how much timber has been taken off.

Why I want to bring this up is that I have strong objection to going to the expense of reestimating this different class of timber. I think that the present estimates and records were obtained by the men looking after the national forest; and if there is not too much variation, I think that the estimates ought to be good: that is, what has been given here, if it is not too far below the estimates of the cruisers that look after the national forest.

In speaking for my own people, I want it to be understood that I will accept the estimates if they are anywhere near the records of the estimates shown by the cruisers who are employed in this Minnesota National Forest.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Burns, will you take the stand to answer that?

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. MARK BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Referring to the timber of the cut-over area, there was no estimate. I do not believe there is any record in the Department of the Agricultural Forest Service, of the estimate of this cutover area, but they have a complete and detailed report of the dif ferent species with the 10 sections, islands and points. We, as the commission, went over this area and checked their work, and probably we checked up 50 per cent. We found this estimate low, and I believe we put it up 30 per cent from the estimate as made by the Forest Service during the winter of 1920-21. It was the winter before the preliminary examination was made, but on the cut-over area of the so-called "5 and 10 per cent area," I do not believe that the Forest Service has any record of the timber. I am referring to the jackpine and hardwood, but they do have it on the 10 sections. Mr. HUDSON. That answers the question?

Mr. GRAVES. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES I. COFFEY

Mr. COFFEY. With reference to the statement Mr. Wakefield made in relation to the Indians' claim that they have not ceded this territory embraced in the national forest, two or three years ago when I was in Minnesota to hold council there, we then refused to do anything in relation to the settlement of the national forest, claiming tot they had not made the cession. If there is anything to be done with this timber, which is now under consideration, which is claimed by the Chippewas, they claim that it should first be sold and cut and paid for. That was their contention at that time, and that is the reason, as I understood it, that they refused to do anything then. There seemed to be two different groups of people there. One One group would be satisfied by taking allotments within the forest reserve, and, I think, letting the balance go, and the older element of people want to retain the entire forest reserve.

Mr. HUDSON. When you say "allotments," you mean an additional 80?

But

Mr. COFFEY. Additional 80-acres' allotment. The reason for that is this: The Steenerson bill forms the basis for that claim. The Steenerson bill of 1904 gave the White Earth Indians additional allotments of 80 acres each. The White Earth Mississippies from the White Oak Point Band, of which Mr. Wakefield is one, and which sent Mr. Wakefield here, claim equal rights with the Indians of the White Earth Reservation, asserting that if the White Earth people were entitled to an additional 80 acres, they were as well entitled to an additional 80 acres, and they want an additional 80 acres. the older element want to protect themselves in their natural life, the way they have always lived, in obtaining their living by hunting and fishing. Mr. Rice went up there and promised them houses to be built on their allotments and that lands would be cleared for them; that they would be given stock and agricultural implements, and put them on a self-supporting basis upon their allotments, and, as I understand it, about all of the Indians in Minnesota understood it that way. That is the principal reason that they made the cession and ratified the act.

Mr. BURKE. The original act with relation to allotments contemplated that the Indians, other than the Red Lake and White Earth, were to move on to the White Earth Reservation, did it not? Mr. COFFEY. That was the provision of the act.

Mr. BURKE. The 1904 act, which you call "the Steenerson Act," increased the allotted area from 80 to 160 acres on the White Earth Reservation, and any Indian remaining on the White Earth Reservation would have received 160 acres under that act.

Mr. COFFEY. I do not understand it that way. That was based upon the former treaty of 1867; it was based upon the treaty which provided that the Indian on the White Earth Reservation could have as much land as he improved, up to 160 acres. If they improved 40 acres, they could have 80: if they improved 80, they could have 160. Many of them, I understood, improved a suffiicent quantity of land to entitle them to 160 acres; but when the commission came along they were allotted only 80 acres, and then they claimed the additional 80, and that was based on the Steenerson Act.

Did

Mr. BURKE. Referring to the council of two or three years ago, the Indians wanted allotments of 80 acres within the forest reserve. they include in the request the new born?

Mr. COFFEY. Everybody.

Mr. BURKE. Then they also claimed, if I am correct, that because the lands had never been paid for under the act of 1908, that the lands within the forest reserve still belonged to the Indians?

Mr. COFFEY. They claimed that.

Mr. BURKE. They claim that yet?

Mr. COFFEY. They claim that yet. They still make their living in the National Forest Reserve. They have actually occupied that territory all of the time. They have never considered themselves as not occupying it.

Mr. HASTINGS. The Indians?

Mr. COFFEY. Yes. They hunt and fish there and do everything they always did before up to now, and when I was up there a year ago last summer they still claimed that they were firm in their contention that they wanted to hold that land, because it was the only thing that they could find there was to live upon. They fish there, get blueberries there, hunt there; and the Government having failed to comply with or fulfill its promise in establishing them in their allotments, they had nothing else to depend on-not a thing. That is the reason there has been so much destitution up there. That is their contention. They gave me to understand that very firmly when I was up there. But, of course, here are the records shown by the commission. They do not recognize that at all. Of course, they saw Rice and held their councils, but they do not claim to have sold the land itself.

Mr. HUDSON. What do they claim to have sold?

Mr. COFFEY. The timber. The timber is what they let go, and that is what they demanded a year ago last summer, that the timber be removed.

Mr. HUDSON. They want all the timber sold?

Mr. COFFEY. They claim that; yes.

Mr. BURKE. Prior to May 17, 1900, more than a million acres of land had been filed upon and settled by homesteaders. Did not the Indians understand that those people were going to acquire that land?

Mr. COFFEY. I do not know exactly; they have never defined those things in particular to me. They simply claim that the area within the forest reserve yet belongs to them.

Mr. BURKE. Is not that very largely because it was not paid for? Mr. COFFEY. They did not say "because," but they said the Government has never paid us for it and it is ours. With reference to the timber covered by H. R. 28, there is a large quantity of that class of timber upon which that claim is based. There is jack pine. The forest reserve is nearly all jack pine country, as a matter of fact. There has been considerable white pine and Norway in there, but a much larger area of jack pine country than the other and, of course, the jack pine there is large, and, cut into timber, it is valuable. They have been selling the jack pine there ever since I went upon that reservation myself. The State of Minnesota was selling jack pine on the stump for $4.50, and in later years for $5.

Mr. HASTINGS. When was that?

Mr. COFFEY. 1908.

Mr. HASTINGS. At that time, in 1908, jack pine had a merchantable value?

Mr. COFFEY. I know it.

Mr. HASTINGS. What about hardwood? Had it any merchantable value?

Mr. COFFEY. The commission was responsible for that, because of the law; that class of timber was not mentioned in the act.

Mr. HASTINGS. We would like to know whether you contend that it was not mentioned because it had or did not have any merchantable value at that time. Suppose you did not regard it as worth anything? Do you regard it as having some merchantable value at that time?

Mr. COFFEY. Let me tell you this: That has been a reservation in the Indian country under the supervision of the Government for many, many years, and everybody knew that they could not get timber there.

Mr. HUDSON. Previous to 1889?

Mr. COFFEY. Yes. They knew that they could not buy that timber if they wanted to, because of its being in the hands of the Government. It was never up for market; never put up, but just as soon as it was put up for market and it was known it could be had, there was a market for it. The Indians themselves have always used the birch, the cedar, and the oak in the activities of their life, making canoes and tepees, and everything of that kind. Of course, they did not use a large quantity of it, but did use it. It was valuable to them.

When Mr. Rice came along with his act of 1889, that demand was universal among the Indians with Mr. Rice to arrange it so that timber could be sold. I believe he encountered that request upon every reservation which was in the act, as all the Indians knew that was valuable, merchantable timber, and they requested that they could sell it. They could sell it if permitted to sell it, and that is why they requested Mr. Rice to recommend it, and he did recommend it to the Secretary of the Interior in his report to the commission. The Secretary, in turn, transmitted that report to the President, and the Secretary recommended to the President that Congress be requested to enact legislation permitting the sale of that timber. The President approved that report. So it is up to Congress to comply with the request of the Indians recommended by the department. I know, in fact, that the Indians do expect compensation for that class of timber.

Mr. HASTINGS. What do you say about the testimony given here by Mr. Burns and Doctor Wooster as to the value of the timber? How do you think that the committee, assuming that it agreed with your contention that the Indians should be paid for the timber. should place a value upon it? Do you think we would be justified in taking this report of the commission and making an appropriation of the amount which is contained in this bill, namely, a little more than a million dollars? Do you think that is Do you think that is a fair compensation for it?

Mr. COFFEY. I do not think that would make a fair compensation for the timber.