Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

other words, we ought to condemn the idea of attorneys seeking to be com pensated when they have not received a contract from the department; then the thing for us to do, it seems to me, is to submit an adverse report upon this bill setting out those facts as notice to all attorneys that if they pursue that course Congress will not compensate them by legislation.

Mr. ROACH. Right on that point may I say, if I understood it correctly, he said that this bill involves a policy that he would like to have settled by this committee rather intimating that it involves a policy that, would have to be settled. Furthermore he suggested later, in a remark, that he was a member of this committee years ago, and that where there was a meritorious claim, where it appeared that valuable services had been rendered to the entire Chippewa Tribe, for which adequate compensation had not been made, he would vote to compensate the person rendering such services. Do I understand by that that you would advocate the policy of paying those claims?

Mr. BURKE. I would make such a declaration that anyone who might see it would understand it; that it was not unlimited as establishing a policy.

Mr. ROACH. Mr. Commissioner, whenever we pay one of these claims, regardless of whether we intend to establish a precedent, do we not establish a precedent?

Mr. BURKE. You do; but at the same time it is not one that is binding.

Mr. ROACH. Now just this further question: If, after considering the evidence in this claim, we are of the opinion that there was no merit in the bill itself, would we necessarily need to establish a precedent, passing on this policy of whether or not we were going to pay claims, by passing on the claim in this particular bill?

Mr. BURKE. I think you ought to do either one thing or the other.

Mr. ROACH. In other words, if we determined there was not any merit in the account rendered and refused to allow it, refused to enact a bill, I do not take it by that that we were establishing a policy that if there was a meritorious bill we would not enact it into law.

Mr. BURKE. No.

Mr. DALLINGER. As a matter of fact, Mr. Commissioner, we can not bind succeeding Congresses anyway, can we?

Mr. BURKE. No, sir.

Mr. DALLINGER. Mr. Ballinger could come to succeeding Congresses for 20 years with this bill.

Mr. ROACH. But the commissioner was asking us to establish a policy.

Mr. DALLINGER. We can do it.

Mr. ROACH. I don't think we can do it.

The CHAIRMAN. No; he suggested that we might do that sort of a thing and not establish a precedent that could not be overthrown at some other time.

Mr. HAYDEN. This is the thought that I had in mind by suggesting an adverse report, if such was the view of the committee: We have spent a good many days here in hearing this testimony-as much time as has ever been devoted to a case of this kind-and if we have reached a conclusion as to what should be done in a case of this sort, the only way to make that conclusion a matter of record is either to report out the bill favorably, setting forth that he should be compensated and why, so that any succeeding committee considering any subsequent case could find out whether it was in line with this case or not by reading the report; if we are satisfied that he is not entitled to any compensation and that a bad precedent would be established, we can file an adverse report setting forth those reasons so that any succeeding committee can know just why we acted as we did.

Mr. DALLINGER. Is it customary to file adverse reports?

Mr. HAYDEN. There are numerous adverse reports filed in every Congress. You will find the Committee on Claims time and time again, after investigating a claim and finding there is no merit in it, report adversely to the House.

Mr. DALLINGER. The House never sees them unless some one happens to know about it and digs it up.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions anybody desires to ask the commissioner?

Mr. JEFFERIS. What do you suppose, Mr. Commissioner, would be the result of allowing a claim like this? Would there be attorneys in different parts of the country who might get together bands of Indians and be in here with many claims?

Mr. BURKE. I think that could be safeguarded against. I do not think the gentleman from Missouri-Mr. Roach-perhaps got quite my point. Mr. Bal

linger, if I understand his attitude correctly, originally started to render service for these Indians, expecting that he could be paid out of the $10,000 appropriation without a contract. Is that not a fact?

Mr. BALLINGER. NO.

Mr. BURKE. You always had a contract?

Mr. BALLINGER. No; they told me in the inception that they would obtain from their funds compensation for me.

Mr. BURKE. And that later, the money not being sufficient to fully compensate him, and later still Congress discontinuing the $10,000 appropriation, then he turned to Congress, after getting this $6,000 contract-when was your first $6,000 contract?

Mr. BALLINGER. I submitted the first one to you, Mr. Burke.

Mr. ROACH. I understand Mr. Ballinger's claim all right; but what I wanted to get clear in my mind was whether you were recommending the establishment of a policy that would be established if we passed and made a favorable report on this bill; and in order to bring that out I asked you the question that I did, because your recommendation or statement as to how you would vote practically, in my opinion, amounted to recommending establishing that policy if the claim justified it.

Mr. BURKE. Well, I think this claim has got to be disposed of. You do not want to have it for the rest of time. It has got to be disposed of one way or the other, and personally, as I say, if I were a member of the committee, I would consider the question from the standpoint of its merits, and if of the opinion that he had not been fully compensated and that his services had inured to the benefit of all the Indians, I would vote to compensate him.

Mr. HAYDEN. On the other hand, if you were convinced that his services had not been of benefit to the entire tribe, and that a bad precedent would be established by reporting a bill of this kind out, would you favor an adverse report?

Mr. BURKE. I would; certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. If the committee will recall, the question was asked of the assistant commissioner whether or not he thought Mr. Ballinger had been fully compensated for his services to the Chippewa Indians, and I think the assistant commissioner said he thought he had not been or that he was entitled to further compensation. But that question was asked advisedly, and I think the commissioner has answered that question by including in his answer all of the tribe. I think the commissioner would probably concede about what Mr. Meritt did, although I have not talked with him about it, that Mr. Ballinger has done work enough so that he might be entitled to more money than he has actually received from the Indians that he has benefited; but the point that the commissioner makes is that there isn't any real-at least, this is the point, I think, that he makes: That he can not be compensated except all the Indians are charged with that compensation-all the tribe.

Mr. BURTNESS. But, Mr. Chairman, did not Mr. Meritt's testimony involve something further than that? Was it not rather to this effect: That while he believed that Mr. Ballinger had perhaps put in time and services which, in a way, were worth more than he had gotten, yet in so far as accomplishing results for the tribe is concerned he doubted very much whether the tribe had really received the benefits to the extent that he had been paid. The CHAIRMAN. He distinctly stated that time and again.

Mr. BURTNESS. On a quantum meruit basis it would seem he felt that Mr. Ballinger had been paid more than he was entitled to, if I understood his testimony correctly.

Mr. BURKE. Will you permit me to say that I have not expressed-at least I have not intended to express-any opinion upon the value of Mr. Ballinger's services, because I think you are quite capable of doing that, and I was not in the department except three months of the time covered by the bill and I am not expressing any opinion as to the value of the services-none whatever. Mr. MONTOYA. Or for whom they are rendered?

Mr. BURKE. No; I am not passing on that.

The CHAIRMAN. What I was trying to clear up was that Mr. Meritt was particular to state in his answer that Mr. Ballinger, he thought, was entitled to some compensation on account of the services that he had rendered to the Indians. Now, that did not mean by any means that he thought he had rendered an advantage to all the Indians, and he clearly stated time and again that he did not and that he thought his action had been adverse to the whole tribe.

88684-22-9

Mr. JEFFERIS. Mr. Burke, Mr. Ballinger, having known the law on the statute books, as you have mentioned, can you give this committee any reason why he did not proceed according to the statute during the time that he was rendering these services, or claimed services?

Mr. BURKE. I certainly could not give any reason. I said in my statement that I presumed it was for reasons best known to himself. I do not know whether he did it without knowing the law or whether he did it regardless of the law, thinking that he could get compensation anyway, I do not know.

Mr. HAYDEN. I asked Mr. Ballinger that question when he was testifying before us, and I gathered from his reply that he made no tender of contract because he was well satisfied it would not be approved.

Mr. BURTNESS. That was it exactly; that they were taking a position that was contrary to the wishes of the bureau at that time, and that it would not be approved, and that was the reason why he did not present the contract. I think his testimony covers that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions that anyone desires to ask the commissioner?

Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the commissioner just a question or two, to clear up a matter here?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we ought to go into that. We cailed the commissioner here this morning to hear his testimony, after having had an opportunity to study the hearings; Mr. Ballinger has had several days in court; I think he stated his case quite fully, and if we open it up again there will be no end to it, and I think we ought to close the hearing right where it is now. Mr. DALLINGER. I move it be closed.

Mr. JEFFERIS. I second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the motion that the hearing close now. Now, the chairman, if it is agreeable to the committee, would like to have an executive session for just a few moments to discuss what we shall do about the matter.

Mr. BURKE. By unanimous consent may I make one statement?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Ballinger wanted to ask a question, and I would have answered it very promptly if he had, if some of the things he was contending for were not for the benefit of all the Indians, and I most certainly say they were. If the Indians could sue the State of Minnesota and get several million dollars for swamp lands, that would benefit all the Indians. There are certain things he was contending that all would have benefited from if accomplished, I want to say that Mr. Ballinger has done much to bring about a much better relation between the so-called business council and the department than existed when I came into office. The attitude at that time was of such a nature and so antagonistic that the Tomahawk, a newspaper published by the White Earth Band, was assailing the department in every issue, and Mr. Ballinger has accomplished much in making things very much more cordial and pleasant than they were before.

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the committee went into executive session.)

[ocr errors]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »