Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF JAMES L. COFFEY.

Mr. COFFEY. I just wanted to add a few words to what has been stated in favor of this per capita appeal. I was up in Minnesota last summer, and I lived among the Indians up there who are making this appeal, and it was during blueberry time; that is, berry-picking time. And I found there that the Indians in the days that they did not pick berries had but very little to live on, but little to eat. They depended altogether upon their berry picking at that period for their subsistence. And later in the year, in the rice harvesting time, they depended on that; and they depend mainly on fish. But the State game laws are such that they are prohibited from taking fish, and when they take them they have to take them stealthily and watch their chances of getting away with it.

Now, when the act of 1889 was enacted by Congress it provided that these Indians turn over all of their holdings to the United States in trust, to be held by the United States, and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury of the United States for their benefit to their credit, and it agreed that their funds would be spent to build them houses on their allotments, and to break land for them, to purchase cattle, sheep, agricultural implements, and place them upon a self-supporting basis. That is what Congress agreed to do with those Indians. The commissioner that was appointed by the President for that purpose went out there and proposed that, and the Indians accepted of that particular proposition. That is what swayed their minds, what influenced them to let go of their extensive holdings, estimated to have been worth then at that time about $50,000,000. In pursuance of that agreement Congress has appropriated annually since then about from $150,000 to $200,000 a year to build houses.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What was the date of that agreement?

Mr. COFFEY. 1889. It was made under the act approved February 14, 1889. I have here the report of the commissioner, in which he reported the agreements that he made. This book contains a report of each council held up there between the commissioner and those Indians, during the negotiations that were had at that time, for this cession. And the commissioner made that report to the Secretary, the Secretary transmitted it to the President for his approval, the President approved it and transmitted that to Congress, and Congress eventually approved it. The agreement stands in that form.

Congress has been making appropriations of $150,000 or more every year since then to put those Indians on a self-supporting basis, to build houses for them, with express terms in their appropriation to build houses for them, to break lands, to purchase teams and cattle and agricultural implements. But the money has not been spent for that purpose. There has not been a house built up there since 1890, I think. There were a few houses built up there for removal of the White Earth Reservation. There were no houses built for the Indians on the White Earth Reservation. There were a few Indians that removed to the White Earth Reservation, and those were provided with small houses costing $500 each.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, Mr. Coffey. you think that the relief ought to be granted, and it should be given on a per capita basis?

Mr. COFFEY. Yes, I do think it ought to be granted, Mr. Chairman, and that they should be given this on a per capita basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Both because of the old treaty regulations and provisions and because of the present need?

Mr. COFFEY. Yes, and to make up for what they have suffered for the nonfulfillment of the agreement that Congress has made with those Indians.

The CHAIRMAN. Now if that is all, there are one or two ladies who want to be heard.
Mr. COFFEY. I will be through in a few words more, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COFFEY. As I stated, there have been no houses built up there, excepting a few for removal. Those that are the most hard up now have never received anything outside of the per capita payments that have been made, and their little $17 per annum annuities. They are living up there in shacks. Mr. Larson tried to give a description of the shacks that they live in there, but they are a great deal worse than what he pictured them to be.

I was up there last summer and I happened to be at the place with one of the people who represented the department, looking over some of their shacks and looking into them, and that man shook his head when he looked in there, and he said, "I never thought that I would see anything like this." They were not habitable, or hardly habitable, for human beings to live in during the winter time. But they kept busy. Somebody is busy all of the time cutting wood, fuel of some kind, during the cold winter, while others are trying to catch fish, snare rabbits, things of that kind. That

is the condition that exists up there. They are actually on the ground. I speak of the Indians principally on the Cass Lake, Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake, and the Chippewa Indian Reservations in Itasca and Cass Counties, because those Indians furnished the greater part of the property that was turned into cash and deposited in the Treasury of the United States, and they have not received a solitary benefit more than I have stated. And I believe, and they all believe, that they ought to get this per capita payment of $100 at this time.

That is all I wish to say; thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Helen Greeley wanted to say a word on the first section of the bill, and I am afraid I interrupted her. We will hear Mrs. Greeley.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HELEN HOY GREELEY, 717 WOODWARD BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. GREELEY. I do not wish to be understood, Mr. Chairman, as objecting to this section.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, on section 1 of the bill.

Mrs. GREELEY. Yes. For I have not information enough really to form a belief about it, and I realize that the committee itself is in process of formation of opinion. But there were certain considerations which occurred to me in my examination of that section, which occurred evidently also to the Senator from Oklahoma, and it is that line of inquiry that I wished to pursue, and to suggest that possibly the committee might very well pursue.

You remember the Senator from Oklahoma spoke about the possibility of the Sioux Indians being damaged by the passage of this section in that they could not participate in any recovery if the litigation, that I understand is in process, were to be successful. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any litigation?

Mrs. GREELEY. Yes; in regard to the Black Hills. I believe that is the point that Representative Williamson, of South Dakota, made. He refers to that at some length in the debate on the bill, as shown in the Record of February 3, and it was his belief, stated on that day, that if this legislation were to pass the Sioux would not be able to partake of the results of that litigation should it be successful. And that, I believe, was the point that was made by the Senator from Oklahoma.

The CHAIRMAN. It was made.

Mrs. GREELEY. That if that suit should not be successful, but in the meantime the applicants for their pro rate shares should have been paid off, the nonapplicants who continued to maintain their tribal relations would suffer, and I believe the commissioner very frankly admitted this in answer to the Senator's question, that that was the gamble, that they took that chance, and that those who took at the beginning would be very much better off than those who stayed in.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Greeley, is it your judgment that the Senator from Oklahoma was right, that they ought to participate in those subsequent recoveries?

Mrs. GREELEY. I have not a definite judgment. What I am questioning is whether this method of emancipation of the Indian is perhaps the correct method. It is involved in this. To my mind this section is a reversal of the policy which I understood was inaugurated by the acts of 1875 and 1887.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us for the record whom you represent, Mrs. Greeley.

Mrs. GREELEY. I am representing myself to-day. I have been asked to represent other people, but I have not decided whether I will. And so to-day I am speaking simply as an individual. I suppose that is proper?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, we are very glad to hear you.

Mrs. GREELEY. I believe that this section involves a reversal of that policy that was initiated by the acts of 1875 and 1887. I may be wrong. I know very little about the situation. Perhaps, in fact, that policy has already been reversed by the Indian Bureau. On that I am not prepared to speak. But, so far as the law itself is concerned, I believe there has been no reversal in law of that policy. This would seem to involve, then, a return to the rather narrow rule that had obtained up to 1875, of determining the Indian's right to participation in tribal funds by the maintenance of his tribal relations. Am I not correct?

The CHAIRMAN. Now, how do you think this ought to be changed?

Mrs. GREELEY. I am not sure. I question whether the dropping of the Indians from the rolls is the best method. It would seem to me that if that is an inevitable method precedent to a very, very desirable policy, then the friends of the Indians ought to be willing to see that adopted; but I don't know, and I think the committee ought to consider very carefully whether that is an inevitable condition precedent to the accomplishment of the desirable policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am glad you called that to our attention.

Mrs. GREELEY. Because this use of the tribal funds, it would seem to me, involves a very fiduciary relation, and the converse of the Senator from Oklahoma's proposition was not presented, but, it seems to me, ought to be considered, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mrs. Greeley, you have not made up your own mind yet, have you?

Mrs. GREELEY. I have made up my mind that it is a provision of very doubtful wisdom.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give that careful consideration.

Mrs. GREELEY. And I believe that the fiduciary relation involved there is such that the committee ought to take no hasty steps to enact this. Personally I do not believe that the evidence adduced here this afternoon in favor of this change of policy, as I understand it to be, is sufficient to enable one to come to a decision, and I feel that there ought to be a great deal more information about that.

May I say just two more things about what follows from the line of inquiry of the Senator from Oklahoma? The applicants for their pro rata shares would profit if the funds should not be subsequently increased by the department's administration, and should not be equal to the amount included in the appraisal. On the other hand, if there should be discoveries of valuable minerals similar to the gold in the Black Hills, or oil, as has been discovered in many Indian lands, those who remain in the tribe would, of course, be the ones to profit, and those who have ceased to maintain their tribal relations would be at the disadvantage that the nonapplicants were in in the case supposed by Senator Harreld.

Now, it seems to me that the policy of emancipating the Indians thoroughly and completely, and setting at rest those idlers of the tribes who have their faces continually turned to Washington, as the Secretary of the Interior said in his letter, is not accomplished thoroughly by this section, because of the provision included in it as to the option. Unless, of course, one assumes that Indians were to be persuaded to relinquish their tribal relations. As long at that option remains in the bill, and no coercion and no eloquent persuasiveness is used, the continued maintenance of tribal relations by those who prefer not to apply for their pro rata shares would make it impossible for the department completely to emancipate the Indians and wind up those affairs. So that it does not seem to me this action is entirely satisfactory.

I do not doubt at all that the lack of satisfaction and clarity in my mind could be cleared up by more evidence, but I do feel that those points that have occurred to me are occurring to other members of the committee and should be considered at greater length than perhaps you will be able to consider them in this session. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The commissioner wanted to say something on section 18.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY MR. CHARLES H. BURKE, COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to do more than to give the committee some information. The trouble with the Chippewa Indians is that they are suffering from per capita payments. A per capita payment does not, as a rule, do Indians very much good. And it encourages them in anticipating payments, and almost immediately after one is made they want another.

I was in Congress for some years, as you people know, and I was being importuned with great regularity by Indians wanting per capita payments, and I found it was a very popular subject, and that every person living anywhere in the vicinity of where the Indians resided always joined with the Indians in urging per capita payments. I remember in the fall of the year we were importuned that there would be great suffering during the winter if the Indians did not get per capita payments, and when spring came we were again importuned that unless the Indians got per capita payments they would not have any money to buy seeds. And the merchants and the pool halls and every industry in the vicinity are joining in the plea for per capita payments.

The CHAIRMAN. With the per capita payments does every Indian receive it? Mr. BURKE. Every Indian receives, regardless of his needs, his per capita share. Senator LA FOLLETTE. These concessions made to settlers, under section 15, seem to partake somewhat of the same character. They are almost like per capita payments. They come every year, apparently.

Mr. BURKE. They do, Senator, and no one would be more willing than myself, if we could find a way to compel these settlers to pay for their land, to have them do so. Senator LAFOLLETTE. I suppose it is because of the direful conditions that prevail up there that they have been granted these concessions. Now it is possible that the Indians may be suffering those who are provided for under section 18—much the

same way.

Mr. BURKE. I would like to give you a concrete example that happened when I was upon this Fort Peck Reservation.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. When was that, if you please?

Mr. BURKE. That was in 1921. An Indian who was protesting against any further extension to settlers, who made an argument something similar to the talk that was made by the delegate this evening, was very insistent that the settler be required to pay the balance due on his land. The same identical Indian came to me before I left to say to me that he had borrowed some money through the agency, through the reimbursable fund, for some purpose, and that the superintendent was requiring him to pay back this loan out of some money that was coming to him from some source. That due to the drought and the conditions locally his circumstances were such that he did not want to pay this amount that he owed as a reimbursable indebtedness. And I said to the Indian, "But you do want the settler who has filed on homestead, who has suffered the same as the Indian by reason of drought, to pay the balance that he may owe on his land." And I said to the Indian, An Indian can not pay money if he hasn't any. Neither can a white man.

And our theory of these extensions, Senator, is this, that if a settler in good faith has lived upon his land and improved it, and that he has not paid, because of the conditions which have made it impossible-and there has been great drought in this portion of Montana until last year, and then the prices, as you know, were very low-that he ought to be continued and encouraged rather than to abandon the land and take the chances of somebody else coming in and take the land, because after a tract of land has been abandoned by some person who has made a failure, it is usually a long time before anybody else will take up the question of obtaining the land or purchasing it. Senator LA FOLLETTE. You evidently quite misunderstood my reference. It just occurred to me when you were speaking of the futility of granting these annuity payments, or granting the per capita payments under section 18, that there was not any evidence of the fact that the Indians needed it because they asked for it. Because they got into the habit of it. And I simply referred to that other matter as going pretty nearly tothe extent of establishing habit. I believe that I quite generally approved of extending within the last three or four years leniency to those people, and I am very certain that the Indians up in that section of our country are in dire need. I know something of that section of the country and of the hardships that oppress them now, and I am quite certain that they are in dire need.

Mr. BURKE. Well, I was going to come up to that, Senator.
Senator LA FOLLETTE. I would be glad to hear from you on that.

Mr. BURKE. The first section of the bill-you were not here, Senator, when it was discussed-contemplates that instead of distributing funds per capita in small amounts, that the competent class of Indians, after it has been determined what represents a fair value of a pro rata share, may be compensated, if they desire to do so, by making an application for a sum of money that represents that share, and go hence, and thereafter not participate with the balance of the tribe, on the theory that $50 now and $100 a year from now does not do a competent Indian very much good. But if he could get it in one sum, he could make some use of it that would be valuable. And then retain the balance of the tribal fund for the protection of the tribe as a whole.

To illustrate it, as I have on some occasions, we will assume that a man has four sons, and he happens to be a widower, and his oldest son, John, is 25 years of age, and the other three boys are 15, 13, and 11, respectively, if you please, and John is through with his education, he is married, he is in business, he is doing fairly well, and his father takes up with him the condition of his estate, and he represents to him about what he is worth, and that if he was to die than that this boy would receive a quarter of his estate, which would be a certain amount. But he says to his son, "John, you are doing well. You appear to be making a success, you seem to be entirely qualified to take care of yourself, and if you desire, I will pay you a certain sum of money that I think is fair, as a share to you, provided you will release your interest in my estate, and I am going to keep the balance of my estate to take care of these three boys until they have reached their maturity and have had an education." And so the boy accepts his father's proposition, and as time passes the father may be very successful, so that at his death the other three children would get a great deal more than the older son got. On the other hand, he might have failed, and the other children would not get anything from the father's estate. Or perhaps the older son may have been extremely successful and may have been a millionaire.

Now, that is the thought that I have had in mind, to give the competent Indian the amount that he is entitled to, if he desires to receive it, upon his application, and go hence and be forever emancipated.

And so I say the manner of distributing funds to relieve distress by a per capita payment I do not believe does what is intended by those who favor the per capita

payment idea. The great number do not need it. Those that do need it, many of them, do not know how to use it. And I am going to give you a concrete case. It happened at Leech Lake in the last per capita payment which was made a little more than a year ago. An Indian, who has a reasonably good reputation, had a wife and two children, and he was very desirous of not only having his own $100, but the $100 of his wife and the $100 of each of the two children, which made $400. The wife was also anxious that the $400 should be paid, and it was paid. The superintendent thought that it was safe to pay the $400, including the children's money, to the father. The result in that case was that the father, after he got the money, got to drinking, and when he sobered up the $400 was gone, and that family had not received any benefit from the $400 that had been paid to the father in a per capita payment. And so my opinion is that for that class of Indians, the restricted class, that the moneys should be used to relieve their distress rather than to pay it to them in a per capita payment. With reference to the Chippewas, I have given a good deal of attention to those Indians since I have been commissioner. I was there in 1921. I was there again in 1922. And I have been endeavoring to secure some settlements that will be to their benefit materially in getting payment for lands and timber that the Government unquestionably owes them, and on the question of their condition, I have given much attention to it, having had a commission for a number of weeks in the Chippewa country with the admonition and instructions to very carefully inquire into the conditions.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What about the mortgages of which some attorney here spoke?

Mr. BURKE. Why, Senator, I think it would be illuminating if there is any way of ascertaining the small number of cases of Indians whose restrictions have been removed in Minnesota that have anything to mortgage.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Those are the only ones that could mortgage, of course.

Mr. BURKE. That is the only Indian that could mortgage. And it is generally understood that the White Earth Indians, whose restrictions were removed by the Clapp amendment in 1906, I think it was 1906, almost immediately sold their lands, and if you remenber that legislation, it authorized the removal of restrictions of all mixedblood Indians, and there had been no roll made, and just as soon as the restrictions were removed they were all mixed blood, and after they had parted with their land many of them came in and were full blood, and it resulted in litigation, and finally in legislation, and some of that land was recovered back for Indians who were full bloods. Now, I believe that the number of Indians whose restrictions in Minnesota have been removed, that have anything left of their lands, is negligible. And our general report is that in cases where Indians have had their restrictions removed, that fully 90 per cent dispose of their lands within a very short time.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. This proposition that you made about the oldest son is one of rather doubtful merit, I should think, in the face of that experience.

Mr. BURKE. That may be true.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I should think the man had better look after John, too.

Mr. BURKE. Well, perhaps he should. But I am not in favor, Senator, of supervising the affairs of any person who is fully competent and qualified to take care of himself. I don't think that is the function of the Government.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. That is always the great problem-to determine if they are competent, and who shall do it.

Mr. BURKE. That is the point, that is the question, and in my judgment they have been too liberal.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. There is oftentimes somebody behind who wants access to the property.

Mr. BURKE. I will say, Senator, that there has not been one fee patent issued since April 1, 1921, where there were several before that date.

Senator. LA FOLLETTE. I don't mean to make any reflection upon your administration, Mr. Commissioner. I have not looked into it recently.

Mr. BURKE. When an Indian application came for a fee patent it generally meant that it came from a real-estate dealer, an automobile dealer or some other person who was expecting to have some business transaction with the Indian just as soon as he got his patent in fee.

But to go back to this subject. I have admonished our superintendent time and time again that we must not permit any suffering among these Chippewa Indians by reason of their not having sufficient food and subsistence to maintain themselves.

Now there has been this activity and this pressure for per capita payment, and that comes from everybody. Everybody wants a per capita payment. The Indian, and those who do business with the Indian. I think there is no dispute about that. And when that does not seem possible to be obtainable, then they turn to the question of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »