Mr. STEENERSON. I thought I was talking about this. I am talking about the services the general council, which is Mr. Ballinger, has rendered. These photostatic copies show they got reductions in the appropriation for relief. Mr. JEFFERIS. Does that come out of the tribal funds? Mr. STEENERSON. Yes, sir. And you understand Mr. Ballinger's constituents are all able-bodied men, either merchants, farmers, or professional men, and I do not think there has ever been an officer of that association who was not a wealthy man, so to speak, and they want to reduce the appropriations for the Indians, and they want it all to remain in the trust fund, so for each $10,000 they reduce the appropriation—that is, $1 per capita-for each of the others and it increases the trust fund that much. If it is spent on the sick and poor for hospitals and such things, it reduces their interest in the fund. Mr. JEFFERIS. How much is this fund, do you know? Mr. STEENERSON. It was $6,000,000 until recently, until we appropriated $100 per capita. Probably it is $4,000,000 now, but that does not last long, and my idea is if the activities of Mr. Ballinger and this council continue they will exhaust it. They had a bill up before your committee to pay out all the money in the trust fund; they want to divide it right away. Then what becomes of the sick and poor? They have tuberculosis and trachoma and everything and are helpless. The officers of the counties are appealing to the governor, and the governor sent recently a representative from the Board of Health of Minnesota. The Becker County officers sent me a letter that it looked as though, if this money was distributed per capita, they would be left with three, four, five, or six hundred paupers to support. That is pretty hard on a small county, and the chances are the Federal Government would not help them, because 90 per cent of them are citizens of the United States. So the claim of the taxpayers of my district is that instead of this money being paid for lawyers' fees it should be kept for the poor. Mr. JEFFERIS. Then it is your view, I take it, Mr. Steenerson, that this socalled council is more interested in getting money for services for lawyers' fees than to have it go back to the poor Indians? Mr. STEENERSON. Exactly. Now, I appeal to you as you examine that charter to consider this, the same as you organize a mutual fire association; you get people to sign, and as you pay the expenses of everybody in the county you can perpetuate that organization as long as you please. There is no way to change these officers; they control it absolutely, although the poor Indians who are full blood and the sick Indians are protesting against any of this fund being used for these men that claim to represent them. Now, I have cited these things to show the services of Mr. Ballinger have been hostile to the real Indians who need the care of the Government, and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation. He had no contract, and this contract under this general council-that general council was undoubtedly formed for the purpose of avoiding the statutes in regard to contracts with Indian tribes; no question about that. Mr. JEFFERIS. Is there any authority of law to have a general council of tribal Indians when out of the reservation? Mr. STEENERSON. Nobody has ever raised the point, but it seems to me, as Mr. Henderson has testified, who is well versed in the Jndian lore, that a general council is called from all the tribes. Mr. JEFFERIS. That is, among the Indians? Mr. STEENERSON. Yes. But this represents a large number of full-blood Indians. Mr. JEFFERIS. As I understand, this council, you say, has been granted citizenship largely? Mr. STEENERSON. Most of them. Mr. JEFFERIS. Is there any authority for citizens to form an Indian council after they become citizens? Mr. STEENERSON. I do not think there is, but they contend they are Indians, because the United States has funds, and the United States is guardian of that Indian so far as that fund is concerned. Mr. ROACH. If the council is unfaithful to the trust and hostile to the real Indian, is there not any way to depose them and get men who would be favorable? Mr. STEENERSON. It would take a lot of money to get control, because they pay their expenses of delegates to every meeting. Mr. ROACH. How were they chosen in the first place-by a majority of the tribe? Mr. STEENERSON. By a majority of whoever attended the council. Mr. ROACH. Could not the council depose them and put in new men? Mr. STEENERSON. If you had good politicians and they were after the business and understood it and had money enough to travel, all that could be done, but I have watched this thing ever since I first began to study it. Mr. ROACH. Has it ever been called to the attention of the Interior Department that this council has been unfaithful? Mr. STEENERSON. Yes; and Mr. Burke has said he refuses to recognize any council, either full-blood or half-breed. The CHAIRMAN. That is only very recently. Mr. STEENERSON, Since Mr. Burke came in. ber of this committee and familiar with Indian affairs. Mr. Burke was formerly a mem The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Steenerson, I regret the time for our recess has gone by and it is now 12.32, and it is unanimous-consent day, and I think we will have to recess until to-morrow at 10.30. Mr. STEENERSON. I would like to add just one word here before I forget it. There are only three Congressmen from Minnesota who represent the territory where the White Earth Indians live. Those are Mr. Larson, of Duluth; Mr. Knutson, of St. Cloud; and myself. We have considered this together a great many times. This bill is introduced by a man who lives hundreds of miles away from any of these Indians. He can have no interest in it. My constituents are vitally interested, because we expect when this money is divided up, as proposed by the general council, that the counties will have to support them. That is the interest we have in it, and I do not know that the author of this bill has any interest whatever in it. Mr. JOHNSON. Do the three Members of Congress who represent the section of the State where the Indians live all oppose this bill? Mr. STEENERSON. I am so informed. I saw Mr. Knutson yesterday and he said he would come here, and Mr. Larson was with me. The CHAIRMAN. I will say for the benefit of the members of the committee that this hearing is being held for the purpose of determining whether there is anything justifiable in this claim, and, further, to establish a policy as to whether or not the committee will hereafter listen to claims of this kind. That is why we are going into the matter so very deeply. Mr. STEENERSON. It is very important. The CHAIRMAN. And we will be glad to hear the two other Members of Congress from that section of the State if they desire to be heard. I have notified Mr. Knutson, but not Mr. Larson, and asked Mr. Knutson to come here. We will recess until 10.30 Wednesday morning. (Whereupon, at 12.35 o'clock p. m., the committee recessed until Wednesday, January 18, 1922, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee this day met,Hon. Homer P. Snyder (chairman) president. The CHAIRMAN. This being a recess proposition, we will proceed with the hearing and await developments. Mr. Steenerson, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. HALVOR STEENERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Mr. STEENERSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there was some discussion about the language of the bill before you, and I have looked it over carefully and have come to the conclusion that I can not agree with Mr. Meritt in his interpretation. The bill provides: "That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay out of the funds of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota now held in the Treasury of the United States all expenses of the general council of said tribe incurred in all litigation and proceedings instituted by direction of said general council " He is directed to pay them 88684-22-5 S "for the benefit of said tribe up to and including July 1, 1921, said accounts to be first approved by the president and secretary of said general council". That is, the payee of this appropriation; that is the one who gets the money; he certifies to his own accounts "and certified to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, and when approved by him to be paid; and the sum of $21,500 " I believe the comptroller would hardly be justified in holding that the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to audit these expenses. This act provides for a self-auditing procedure. The beneficiary of the appropriation is the general council, and the officers of the general council are to pass on it and have got to certify, but it does not say just what the certificate shall be, except that it shall be approved by the general council. "When approved by the Secretary "-that would mean, to my notion, that it was in the form contemplated by the statute, that it is approved and certified by the general council and officers; but he would not be justified in going behind the certificate of the general council. I claim that is the proper interpretation of this act, the same as the case to which Mr. Meritt referred as an analogous subject. There is another thing that I would call to the attention of the committee and that is the language of the appropriation act for the fiscal year 1919; I think that is the next to the last year. The CHAIRMAN. Two years-1920 and 1921. Mr. STEENERSON. These are fiscal years. It should be borne in mind that a fiscal year commences six months before the calendar year begins and it ends on the 1st of July. This is for the fiscal year 1919, June 30, 1919. That is the title of the act. That would go back to July 1, 1918, and would include the 1st of July, 1919. That is, the fiscal year takes its name from the year in which the fiscal year ends. The clause making the appropriation for the general council reads: "That the sum of $10,000 or so much thereof as may be necessary, of the tribal funds of the Chippewa Indians of the State of Minnesota, is hereby appropriated to pay the expenses of the general council of said tribe to be held at Bemidji, Minn., beginning July 9, 1918, pursuant to the constitution of the general council of said Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, organized in May, 1913, and to pay the expenses of said general council in looking after the affairs of said tribe, including the actual and necessary expenses of its legislative committee in visiting Washington during the second sesson of the Sixty-fifth Congress, said sum to be immediately available, and said actual and necessary expenses to be approved by the president and secretary of the general council and certified to the Secretary of the Interior and as so approved and certified to be paid." That is substantially the same language as in all of the appropriation acts. There is one peculiar thing about it. Here is this statement of the payments pursuant to different appropriation acts. Now, you will observe that the act appropriates money and says that it is for the general council expenses and the itemized bill, about half of it, relates to the expenses of delegates to Bemidji, Minn. There are the hotel bills of all the members and then I find this item, "Webster Ballinger, legal services, $2,830.33." I want to point out that it seems to me that an appropriation for the expenses of the general council does not include the attorney fees. They could not certainly spend that much money going up there. Mr. ROACH. What is the date of the last item, $2.830.33? Mr. STEENERSON. That item is headed "Statement of expenditures from the sum of $10,000 appropriated from the Chippewa tribal funds by the Indian act approved June 30, 1919 (Public No. 3, p. 13), for 1920 on account of councils, delegations, etc., to December 15, 1919." That is the statement in the account that they sent to their own council and to the Secretary of the Interior. The following is a detailed statement of the particular items of $2,830.33 : DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Hon. H. STEENERSON, House of Representatives, Washington. MY DEAR MR. STEENERSON: In response to your letter of January 18, 1922, I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of statements submitted to this office by Mr. Webster Ballinger, covering professional services and other expenses aggregating $2,830.23, paid from the tribal funds of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, under claim No. 320749, Sincerely, yours, The Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, to Webster Ballinger, debtor Expenses of trip to attend meeting of the general council held at Cass Lake, Minn., commencing July 8, 1919, and inspecting conditions on Red Lake Reservation pursuant to authorization of general council, as attorney for general council and in looking after the affairs of the tribe for the general council (left Washington July 5 and returned July 17, 1919) $2,500,00 Transportation from Washington, D. C., to Bemidji, Minn___ 45.94 4.86 2.16 Transportation from Bemidji, Minn., to Washington, D. C_ 45.94 2.18 2. 16 4. 86 14.50 Room and meals Endion Hotel, Cass Lake, Minn. 9.95 8.00 20.00 Total 159.63 JULY 5, 1919. The Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, to Webster Ballinger, debtor (to $1.50 Feb. 7, 1919, Gertrude Washington, stenographic and typewrit- Feb. 21, 1919, Kent & Pilson, stenographic and typewriting_-. 3.50 11.50 150, 00 2.95 1. 15 Total 170.60 If you examine closely the appropriation you will find that the expenditure was never authorized, because it is not within the description of the items which they claim, and I think the same thing may be said as to all of these items for these years from 1916 to 1920, those five years-if you examine the appropriation acts. Mr. JEFFERIS. Was all of the $10,000 used in 1919? Mr. STEENERSON. In the fiscal year. Some of it, of course, would begin in 1918. Mr. JEFFERIS. I understand. The CHAIRMAN. What you are attempting to show is that the language in the appropriation act did not permit the payment to the council; is that the point? Mr. STEENERSON. Yes, sir. It does authorize payment for legal services. When the general council certified it to the Secretary of the Interior or the Indian Office they certified something that was not authorized by law. They have paid for something that Congress never appropriated for, and I think it could be recovered by an action on the part of the United States for the benefit of the Indians. In some cases they get appropriations for counsel fees, but not in this manner. How can you liberalize the language of the act so as to include counsel fees when they enumerate the other items specifically? The inclusion of one excludes the other under the rule of construction of statutes. There is another thing that I do not need to point out, because you can find it by reference. I want to make this point in addition to the other, that this appropriation, from 1915, was an appropriation "for the expenses of the general council." If they had left it out, of course, legal expenses would be included, even if not specified, but we had paid some of these annual bills; I think most of them were in the annual appropriation bills. This appropriation simply said "for the fiscal year" mentioned, and we afterward paid them. For instance, in 1919, for the fiscal year 1918, they presented their bill, which, I think, covered almost the whole appropriation, and it was paid. By what reason can they now bring in a bill for covering all prior years? They also presented the bill within the appropriation, whether it included counsel fees or anything else a very important point about the expenditure, when rendering an annual bill of expense, and which is paid, unless there is a distinct understanding otherwise, that pays the bill up to date. The last bill presented and paid was for the fiscal year 1921. Mr. JEFFERIS. That is July 1, 1921? Mr. STEENERSON. Yes, sir. When you paid that, there is no authority to go back and pay for the years you have already paid. A further point that I want to make is that I did not hear all of Mr. Ballinger's recital. I want to say that he is a very industrious man and I have no personal animosity toward him. I listened to him as long as I could while I was here, and I can not understand how he can claim anything for the fiscal years prior to 1921. 66 The appropriation act for the fiscal year 1919, approved May 25, 1918, appropriated $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary," to pay the expenses of the general council and the expenses of said general council in looking after the affairs of said tribe, including the actual necessary expenses of the legislative committee in visiting Washington during the second session of the Sixtyfifth Congress. The itemized bill for this amounted to $9,929.30, so that there was $69.70 left. The claim was therefore paid in full. It was for the Sixtyfifth Congress, second session. No further claim can be recognized for this session. Mr. ROACH. If you will pardon me, he claimed in that connection that the amounts paid to him were only credits on his account. Mr. STEENERSON. I did not hear him say that. I do not think that is just right. If you will examine the photostatic copies of account, there was no mention of credit; it was for the bills, and therefore when paid they are paid. So far as I can understand, the only right and justifiable claim before the committee would be for the actual work done since the fiscal year 1921 instead of for prior years. He and the council he represents have received from 1915 down to date thirty-four thousand and some odd dollars, a large sum. Mr. ROACH. Mr. Ballinger reports $9,000 and Mr. Meritt reports something over $10,000. The CHAIRMAN. Anyhow, it is in the record. Mr. STEENERSON. If you will examine these photostatic copies it can be ascertained. I have summarized them in a statement. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it your contention you have referred to accounts, accounts stated technically? Mr. STEENERSON. Yes, sir. It seems to me you could not bring in a bill approved for the expenses for a fiscal year and get paid and then come in and say that was not all. I have been connected with the Postal Service for 19 years. I have had charge of the large appropriations, which we examined in detail, and nobody would ever think of coming in with a bill covering the same period for which an appropriation has been made and once paid Mr. ROACH (interposing). Has Mr. Ballinger ever rendered a bill, or has he just accepted payment without rendering any bill? Mr. STEENERSON. This comes from the bureau. I suppose these items are all enumerated here. |