Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Mr. GENSMAN. That is those in the factions?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir; and I am speaking of all the Indians in the Chippewa country.

Mr. ROACH. Both factions are working more or less at cross-purposes with the department?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir. I might say in this connection that Mr. Coffey is here in Washington at this time. He claims to represent the other faction, and I have incurred his enmity because I would not recommend the payment of his expenses out of Chippewa funds, and also because of my position on this enrollment matter, where I held that those Indians should not be taken off the rolls. We are between the devil and the deep blue sea in this Chippewa matter, and get it from both sides, because we are not able to please either side. We try to reach a conclusion that will administer those affairs without injustice to either faction. To paraphrase Shakespeare, we say, a plague on both factions"

66

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you not suppose Mr. Coffey realizes the fact that Congress is getting awfully tired of seeing these gentlemen coming down, joy riding around Washington, at the National Hotel, and elsewhere, and that if you recommend the payment of those expenses it would probably be bitterly fought on the floor of Congress, and that he would have no chance of its getting through?

Mr. MERITT. That is true, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. MCCORMICK. In your attitude toward attorneys representing tribes of Indians, Mr. Meritt-that is, the attitude of the bureau-do you take the attitude that there are no things to be remedied by attorneys representing the Indians, or that there are matters which should be brought to your attention and which, possibly, you do not approve in their then state? In other words, there might arise a situation wherein the tribal council might properly disagree with the department and might authorize its attorney to appear for it, and still you would be impelled to decide the question of policy merely on the approval of a contract with an attorney. Now, there are a number of situations that have arisen in the past and that are arising now, wherein the Indians disagree with the department, and you do not take the attitude, do you, that the Indians should coincide with the department in order to have a contract approved with their attorneys?

Mr. MERITT. Not at all. We are glad to have the views of the Indians on all administrative matters. We get those views through our superintendents. We call on them for recommendations. And frequently we are in correspondence with Indians. In recent years Indians have become educated at our Indian schoools, and they have become efficient and prolific letter writers. We receive information direct from all classes of Indians, and we are glad to have those letters and that information.

Mr. BURTNESS. Then, Mr. Meritt, along the same line as Mr. McCormick's question, you stated that Mr. Ballinger's contract could not have been approved and would not have been approved because of the hostility of Ballinger and the council to the bureau?

Mr. MERITT. And to the other faction of Indians.

Mr. BURTNESS. Yes; and to the other faction of Indians. Now, it is true that it is impossible to get the approval of any contract that is made by the general council where the attitude of the council is hostile to the work that has been done by the bureau?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir.

Mr. BURTNESS. Can you give us any instances of contracts that have been approved where the council has taken a hostile attitude toward the bureau, or have they been uniformly disapproved by the department?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir; we have had contracts in the past with attorneys who have not always agreed with the Indian Bureau in the interpretation of laws or in administrative policy. For a great many years Mr. Hastings, formerly a member of this committee, was attorney for the Cherokee Indians. He at all times expressed his own view in regard to the law and in regard to administrative policies, and yet he remained the Cherokee tribal attorney for a great many years.

Mr. BURTNESS. When his contract was approved, for instance, was there then an understanding that he was taking up a proposition for the tribe that he represented those in hostility to the position that had been taken by the Indian Bureau upon that question theretofore?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir; that was not the understanding. My statement with regard to the hostility of Mr. Ballinger and the council was to advise the committee that they had reached a state of mind where they were not true representatives of the Chippewa Indians, and for that reason we should not pay out Chippewa funds to an attorney who was not representing the Chippewa Indians. Mr. BURTNESS. Well, the hostility of Mr. Ballinger, who simply represented the council, or the hostility of the council, was not to a majority of the members of the tribe but in regard to the way the Indian Bureau had been handling the affairs of the tribe, was it not?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir; they were not only hostile to the bureau, but hostile to other tribes of Chippewa Indians: For example, this faction of Chippewa Indians took the position that the Indians outside of the Red Lake Reservation were entitled to share in the surplus property of the Red Lake Indians, notwithstanding two laws of Congress in direct opposition to that contention. Mr. ROACH. That condition has only prevailed since 1916, where there was any hostility on the part of factions of Indians. In other words, the factional difficulties have come up since 1916.

Mr. MERITT. And Mr. Ballinger has been representing the council since 1918. But there has been a faction among the Chippewa Indians for years.

The CHAIRMAN. 'Way back of that. There has always been, since I have known anything about it, and all the records show there has been more or less of a war on between the Red Lakers and the White Earth Indians for years. Mr. JEFFERIS. Was there any legal question involved that has any merit? Mr. MERITT. There are several in connection with the Indian matters. Mr. JEFFERIS. I mean in this question. Was there any issue that was a legal, a justifiable matter of controversy?

Mr. MERITT. The attorney for the council asserted a legal claim against the Red Lake Indians, but the attorney for the Red Lake Indians stoutly asserted there was no such claim. It is a matter that will eventually be settled by the courts.

Mr. JEFFERIS. Has it been determined yet?

Mr. MERITT. It has not been determined as yet.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say for the benefit of Mr. Jefferis that we have had a full and careful hearing, covering that particular question, running for several days here, which is a matter of record, and it seems there is a big legal question to be settled sometime with regard to the final disposition of the funds of that tribe. As I say, we have had so many hearings on this Chippewa matter that practically everything everyone is saying here now has been said before. Mr. Steenerson is about to make a statement here, most of which is undoubtedly in the record in several places, and then he wishes to call on Mr. Henderson to restate what he has probably stated on several occasions, and I think it would be a good plan to get to that and get it into the record, so those who have come on the committee recently will get it in a new form.

Mr. STEENERSON. I think you are anticipating, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SWANK. On this question of hostility toward the bureau, Mr. Meritt, is it not a fact that the tribal attorneys for the Five Civilized Tribes, and some of the probate attorneys in many instances, have not always agreed with the policy of the bureau?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SWANK. And they did not lose their jobs on that account, did they? Mr. MERITT. No, sir; no tribal attorney need fear to assert his views on any legal proposition. What we do object to is for a man to take an unfair position on matters and attempt to cripple administrative action of the bureau which is required by Congress for the benefit of all the Indians.

Mr. SWANK. But your bureau would not refuse to approve a contract just because the attorney did not agree with your policy, would it?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir.

Mr. ROACH. I hate to ask so many questions, but I would like to go back to the inception of that contract. You heard Mr. Ballinger's statement that the authorized representatives of the council came to Washington and employed him to officially represent the tribe. That council at that time was being recognized by your department, and I want to know if, in your opinion, the conditions of the tribe before your department at that time were such as justified them in employing outside counsel, though the department could not approve of the contract. In other words, could the council have obtained an accounting of

their estate and the condition of their estate and the many matters that Mr. Ballinged undoubtedly did call to their attention without the employment of counsel?

Mr. MERITT. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Steenerson, I am sorry if I have anticipated what you have to say, and I hope I have not.

Mr. STEENERSON. I would like to ask Mr. Henderson a formal question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Henderson is counsel for the Red Lake Band of Indians.

STATEMENT OF MR. D. B. HENDERSON.

Mr. STEENERSON. Your name is D. B. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. Daniel B. Henderson; yes, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. And you are an attorney?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. And have been concerned in your practice with Indian matters?

Mr. HENDERSON. For 20 years or more; yes, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. Now, as such have you become familiar with the customs and laws of the Indians in their tribal life?

Mr. HENDERSON. I think thoroughly so, Mr. Steenerson.

[ocr errors]

Mr. STEENERSON. Now what is understood among Indians by the term general council" of a tribe of Indians? How are they convened and when do they expire, etc.?

Mr. HENDERSON. A general council of the ordinary tribe of Indians, such as the Chippewa-different component parts of the Chippewa tribe, or the Chippewas of Minnesota-is a gathering or convention called according to tribal custom; that is, with a notice given according to the tribal custom, which may vary with the different bands in the same tribe. It is usually a convention that holds for a day or two days.

Mr. STEENERSON. And is it called for a specific purpose?

Mr. HENDERSON. It is usually called for a specific purpose.

Mr. STEENERSON. How would it be where there are several bands under one general council?

Mr. HENDERSON. If the several bands had business that was common to all the bands, they would have a general council of those bands, but the proceedings of that council would not extend to any matter that was separate and distinct and in which all of the bands were not interestel. In other words, take it in the Chippewa country, the Chippewas of Minnesota have business that is common to all the bands in the State by virtue of the act of January 14, 1889, but those component bands have each its own separate business, which is not a suitable subject for deliberation by a general council called of the Minnesota Chippewas, in my opinion.

Mr. STEENERSON. These general councils, under the traditions and practice and lore of the Indians, are called as the occasion requires-they are not a permanent body that continues to exist from year to year or from month to month, are they?

Mr. HENDERSON. No, sir; they are not.

Mr. STEENERSON. Whenever a question arises in which they are interested as a band, the council of the band is called and when it is a general question the general council is called, and then dispersed?

Mr. HENDERSON. That has been my experience.

Mr. STEENERSON. You are attorney for the Red Lake Indians?

Mr. HENDERSON. The Red Lake Band.

Mr. STEENERSON. And they are part of the Chippewas of Minnesota, are they?

Mr. HENDERSON. They are part of the Chippewas of Minnesota; yes sir. Mr. STEENERSON. How many of them are there?

Mr. HENDERSON. Something like 1,400 or 1,500; I have forgotten the exact number. I can tell you exactly, if you desire it.

Mr. STEENERSON. That is near enough. Did they at one time join this organization here referred to as the "general council"?

Mr. HENDERSON. I believe that the first meeting or two did have representatives from the Red Lake Band. I was not at that time employed in that branch of their work and was not concerned with it.

Mr. STEENERSON. How about late years?

Mr. HENDERSON. Of late years, they did not.
Mr. STEENERSON. Did they withdraw?

Mr. HENDERSON. They formally withdrew from the general council. Let me say, Mr. Steenerson, that my information is there have been, I should say, selfappointed delegates who have appeared at the general council, and I think perhaps the records of the general council would show a state of facts different from my statement in regard to the matter, but I have made careful investigation and it would show there were no authorized delegates.

Mr. STEENERSON. How are you employed as attorney for this tribe?

Mr. HENDERSON. I am employed under a regular contract made with the authorities of the tribe and submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. STEENERSON. Are the matters of which you have charge in that tribe in harmony with or in disagreement with the interests of the other members of the Chippewa Nation?

Mr. HENDERSON. They are distinctly opposed to the claims of the general council.

Mr. JEFFERIS. That is, the Red Lakes?

Mr. HENDERSON. The Red Lakes.

Mr. STEENERSON. And it involves large timber tracts and agricultural lands? Mr. HENDERSON. It does; yes, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. It also involves a fund in the Treasury of some considerable amount, does it not?

Mr. HENDERSON. Several millions of dollars, I should say, Mr. Steenerson. Mr. STEENERSON. And if the contention of the general council representing all the Chippewas should be successful the Red Lakers would lose?

Mr. HENDERSON. Very heavily.

Mr. STEENERSON. Several millions of dollars?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. And this work of Mr. Ballinger has been, at least in part, hostile to the interests of the Red Lake Indians?

Mr. HENDERSON. I would so understand it; yes, sir. I consider it to be hostile to their interests.

Mr. STEENERSON. Well, the bill introduced on behalf of the general council seeks to appropriate these lands for the benefit of all the Indians?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes; and I think the hearings before this committee will show that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. There can be no question about that.

Mr. STEENERSON. I think that is all I want to ask Mr. Henderson, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. BURTNESS. Just one more question, unless you will tell us, Mr. Steenerson: Has this council officers that serve from year to year?

Mr. STEENERSON. Mr. Meritt knows about that. You have copies of the articles of association of the general council in your office, have you not? Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. Do you remember how many signatures there were to the original articles of incorporation?

Mr. MERITT. I do not think there was any incorporation of the mixed-blood faction, but there was an incorporation of the full-blood faction.

Mr. STEENERSON. Was it not put in evidence when you had the hearing a year or two ago?

Mr. MERITT. That was the incorporation of the full-blood faction.

Mr. STEENERSON. You have a copy of it in your office, have you not?
Mr. MERITT. I think not.

Mr. STEENERSON. My recollection is there were only 15 or 20 that signed that, but can you furnish this committee with a copy of the articles of incorporation? Mr. MERITT. A copy of the articles of incorporation of the full-blood council is not on file in the Indian Office, and, so far as I recall, it has not been printed in any hearing.

Mr. JEFFERIS. I want to ask a question: In other words, the so-called "General Council" of the Chippewas and the so-called employment of Mr. Ballinger, is seeking to obtain funds that the Red Lakes claim belong to them exclusively, and properties which the Red Lakes claim to belong to them exclusively?

Mr. HENDERSON. Funds and properties; yes, sir.

Mr. JEFFERIS. Do the Red Lakes hold that property by treaty?

Mr. HENDERSON. They hold it first by aboriginal possession and later by reservation set apart under treaty and later by an agreement made by the United States with them, known as the McLaughlin agreement, 1904.

Mr. JEFFERIS. How many Chippewa bands are supposed to be represented in this Chippewa General Council that is making this claim against the Red Lakes? Mr. HENDERSON. I will enumerate them. There are seven or eight of them. There is the Fond-du-Lac

Mr. STEENERSON (interposing). Are they against the Red Lakers, Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. No; he said outside the Red Lakers.

Mr. STEENERSON. I understood him to ask for the tribes making the claim against the Red Lakers.

Mr. JEFFERIS. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. I did not understand the question. So far as I know the only bands that are making the claim against the Red Lakers are a part of the White Earth bands-and there are quite a number of buds on that reservation-and perhaps a part of the Fond-du-Lac. The White Earth reservation is the largest reservation in the State of Minnesota, I believe, and on that are located a number of the bands which constitute the Minnesota Chippewas-but not all of the White Earth bands, as I understand it, are setting up this contention with reference to the Red Lake property.

Mr. JEFFERIS. They set it up through the general council.

Mr. HENDERSON. They set it up through the general council, but they are not in accord with the general council always. For instance, I think I might say that the Pillager Bands, located on the White Earth Reservation, are not at all in accord with the contention of the general council. Perhaps a majority of the Fond-du-Lacs are; I do not know with reference to them; but I think I could safely say as to the others, the majority of them are not in accord with the contention of the general council with reference to the Red Lake claim.

Mr. STEENERSON. How about the full-blood faction?

Mr. HENDERSON. should think the full-blood faction, as a class, are with the Red Lakes, rather than against them, throughout Minnesota.

Mr. STEENERSON. You were one of the attorneys for these 89 members of the Chippewa tribe that they sought to strike from the rolls some years ago?

Mr. HENDERSON. I represented all but one of them, I think, Mr. Steenerson. Mr. STEENERSON. And who was the one you did not represent?

Mr. HENDERSON. Gus H. Beaulieu.

Mr. STEENERSON. And who represented him?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Ballinger.

Mr. STEENERSON. And you represented 88?

Mr. HENDERSON. I represented all but one. I think 86 was the exact number, and I represented 85 of the 86; or, if there were 89, I represented 88 of the 89. Mr. STEENERSON. And the money or property that was gained by your victory in that proceeding diminished the property and funds of the other Chippewas outside of those 89?

Mr. HENDERSON. Proportionately, as a matter of course.

Mr. STEENERSON. It was a proceeding that was hostile to all the other Indians so far as their money interests were concerned?

Mr. HENDERSON. So far as the amount of money they were each to receive. Mr. STEENERSON. And how were you paid?

Mr. HENDERSON. Poorly, sir.

Mr. STEENERSON. I do not mean that.

Who paid you?

Mr. HENDERSON. I beg your pardon, sir. I was paid, so far as I was paid, by the individuals who were claiming the right to enrollment, but very few of them paid me.

Mr. STEENERSON. And you never did bring a bill to Congress to compel those who lost the case to pay the fees of the Indians who won?

Mr. HENDERSON. No, sir; I could not have done that, of course.

Mr. STEENERSON. That is the reason you have not collected all the fees that you ought to have?

Mr. HENDERSON. Well

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is one of the reasons.

Mr. STEENERSON. I think that is all. I would like to ask Mr. Meritt a question.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Steenerson, before you leave with Mr. Henderson, I think it would be proper to state to the committee that Mr. Henderson was not em

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »