one payment; provision may be made for its payment in from one to ten or more annual installments, as may seem best. The price to be paid should be just and fair, both to the Indians and the United States.

None of the Indians of the Red Lake Reservation have received allotments in severalty. According to the census report of June 30, 1901, they number 1,366. The number of adult males can be obtained from the United States Indian Agent, Leech Lake Agency. There are some 20 or more Indian families residing upon the portion of the reservation for which negotiations are to be conducted. Some suitable and satisfactory provision should be made respecting these Indians, either by alloting them lands where they now reside or by purchasing their improvements and removing them to the retained portion of the reservation. It is only deemed necessary to call your attention to the matter to insure satisfactory provision for these families. The wishes of the Indians residing on the portion of the reservation it is proposed to cede should have very great weight in determining what disposition shall be made of them. In arranging for the disposition of the proceeds arising from the cession of the lands, the special needs of the Indians should be very carefully considered. If a part of the consideration can best be expended annually by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of the Indians, such provision should form one of the important articles of the agreement. The amount of cash that shall be paid annually should also receive very careful consideration. Much, however, must be left to your discretion and the wishes of the Indians.

One article of the agreement should provide that it must be ratified and confirmed by Congress before it becomes binding, either upon the Indians or the United States. You are hereby authorized to employ an interpreter and stenographer to assist you in conducting the negotiations. Acting Agent Scott of the Leech Lake Agency, will be directed to provide subsistence for the Indians when in council considering the negotiations.

Minutes of all council proceedings should accompany your report under these instructions, whether an agreement with the Indians is. concluded or not.

Should you be able to conclude an agreement with the Indians one which you think would promote their interest and welfare-the same should be reduced to writing and executed in proper legal form for acceptance and ratification by Congress. It must contain the signatures of a majority of the adult male Indians residing and belonging upon the reservation. The signatures should be "under seal" and should be properly witnessed. The agreement must also be signed by yourself as United States Indian Inspector, the signature being properly witnessed. The signatures should be followed by proper certificates of the interpreter and the United States Indian agent, the latter to the effect that the Indians signing constitutes a majority of the adult male Indians of the reservation.

Proper instructions will be given the United States Indian agent of the Leech Lake Agency relative to subsisting the Indians while in council and relative to cooperating with you in conducting the proposed negotiations. Should you desire further information, the same should be called for; or should you desire further instructions upon any point you should ask for the same.

Upon the conclusion of the negotiations, whether successful or unsuccessful, you will make full report of your actions under these instructions to the Secretary of the Interior.

You will, accordingly, as early as practicable, after the receipt of these instructions, and under directions of the Secretary of the Interior, proceed to the Red Lake Reservation for the purpose of conducting the negotions herein contemplated.

Very respectfully,

W. A. JONES, Commissioner. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, February 14, 1902.

Approved:

Е. А. Нитсисоск,
Secretary.

Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that that communication was an interpretation by the Indian Bureau as early as 1902 of the title to the whole of that diminished Red Lake Reservation, inasmuch as it distinctly recognizes in that communication that no one but Red Lakes have anything to do with the disposal of any part of that 700,000 acres, and that only they are to be considered and that when the agreement has been made by them and ratified by

Congress, the whole thing is settled. Now, I would like to ask if the Indian Bureau has followed the interpretation of that letter ever since.

Mr. MERITT. We have. It has been the position of the Indian Bureau long prior to the act of 1904 and ever since that the Red Lake Reservation belonged exclusively to the Red Lake Indians.

Mr. ELSTON. Of course, this letter was written before the act of 1904 and it practically compels the act of 1904 by having initiated proceedings which look forward to that act. It is perfectly obvious that if this agreement was consummated the concluding part of the paragraph would be the act of Congress, which it mentioned there. Now, was there any legislation previous to 1902, the date of this letter, that disposed the bureau to make the decision which that letter carries, that the Red Lakes, and the Red Lakes alone, have the title to that 700,000 acres?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ELSTON. What was it?

Mr. MERITT. The proceedings in connection with the agreement which was confirmed by the Nelson Act of 1889.

Mr. ELSTON. Now, the act of 1889, of course, provided for negotiations for an agreement by which the diminished reservation should be created?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ELSTON. And the remaining lands of the Red Lake Reservation shall be disposed of for the general benefit of the whole of the Chippewas, is the text of the act of 1889 itself, or something else?

Mr. MERITT. The conversation between the Indians and the commissioners who were sent to negotiate the agreement reads otherwise and for the information of the committee I will read three short paragraphs. The proceedings of the council from which I am now reading were dated July 3, 1889, and were held by the Red Lake Indians: Ah-Nuh-Ne-Ay-Ge-Shig said: "My friends," speaking to the Indians

Mr. DALLINGER. Who was he?

Mr. MERITT. He was a Red Lake Indian. He was talking with the commission sent out there to negotiate with the Chippewa Indians. Mr. RHODES. What page is.that on?

Mr. MERITT. Page 71 of Executive Document No. 247, House of Representatives, Fifty-first Congress, first session:

My friends, we understand all your meanings; we are not foolish; we understand the whole thing. We wish to bring out another objection; the money that you wish to have as a fund, which will originate the interest, whatever belongs to the Red Lake Indians, we do not want consolidated with the money of any other band. It is on the same principle that you have property; you get the worth of your property; you are not going to share with a neighbor what you get for your own property. That is the way we want to do with this. We are very much obliged to you for waking us up, so that you find our objections. At the present time the feeling is, that it is best to adjourn, and under this understanding, the minds are made up-maybe the minds of the people will change after this explanation, and I move that we adjourn.

This is on July 4, 1889, in council with the Red Lake Indians:
May Dway Con On Ind said in part:

Another objection that we have to the act is the allotment part; that allotments should be made to us in severalty. We wish that any land that we possess should be not only for our own benefit, but for our posterity, our grandchildren hereafter. And then another obiection that we have to the act is the consolidation of our interests, the

interests of the Red Lake Indians. We think that we should own in common everything that pertains to us; with those that are suffering in poverty, just the same as we are; that is a serious objection. We have heard from you the explanation of how the money was to be expended; we have not a clear insight into it. That is all I have to say at present.

Now, one of the commissioners representing the Government, Bishop Marty, made this statement, which was in the proceedings of the council of the Red Lake Indians under date of July 4, 1889:

*

*

*

Bishop MARTY. Now, this reservation being yours, you must do with it as your advantage dictates, and for the advantage of the whole Chippewa Nation. I am a messenger of the Great Spirit, and I will say here what I would say anywhere: If one man has a little more than another he is bound to help his neighbor. If you have a little more and help your neighbors with it, God will bless you for it. Neither you nor your children will lose anything by it. I have been following that rule now for over 50 years, and I am very well off.

Mr. DALLINGER. Do I understand that the bureau bases its opinion in regard to the ownership in fee of that Red Lake Reservation on some remarks made by some Red Lake Indians and this bishop as against the clear language of the act of Congress itself? Those remarks were made by parties in interest, and they naturally would be expected to make statements of that sort in support of their own claim: I am asking whether the indian Bureau when it made certain recommendations to Congress in 1904, on which the act of Congress was based, relied on such remarks as those you have just read rather than upon the language of the act of 1889.

Mr. MERITT. There is no specific provision in the act of 1889 which gives all the Chippewa indians the right to the lands of the Red Lake Reservation; on the contrary there is a specific provision in the act of 1904 which recognizes the right of the Red Lake Indians to all of the Red Lake Reservation. There is also a specific provision in the act of 1916 which recognizes the right of the Red Lake Indians to the entire Red Lake Reservation.

Mr. DALLINGER. I understood from what Mr. Ballinger read here that there was something in the act of 1889.

Mr. MERITT. Therefore it was the duty of the Indian Bureau to follow the clear and expressed wording in the acts of Congress referred to, namely, the acts of 1904 and 1916.

Mr. DALLINGER. I think that, of course, merely means that it was the duty of Congress to follow the course of action that was determined upon by the bureau previous to either one of those acts and I think it would be proper to say so, because that letter you read to that inspector who went out there to negotiate this agreement, indicates that the bureau itself made this formal decision away prior to the enactment of these two acts on which you base now your adherence to that view. Now, was the decision of the bureau with respect to the title to these Red Lake lands based on anything else, either statements of indians on the Red Lake Reservation who would naturally be presumed to be interested in making such statements, or did you have the opinion of the Solicitor of the interior Department on the act of 1889 with regard to the title of these lands, or do you rest more on just those statements that you spoke of?

Mr. MERITT. I am not going into details as to that feature of the acts, because Mr. Henderson, attorney for the Red Lake Indians, will point out those details; but I am simply giving now in an offhand and extemporaneous way the laws bearing on this subject and

the reasons why the Indian Bureau has taken its position. In that connection it may be interesting to note that one of the witnesses to the agreement with the Red Lake Indians is Mr. B. L. Fairbanks, who is a very able and distinguished member of the Chippewa Tribe and who perhaps is the wealthiest Indian in the Chippewa country, and he is here now, associated with the mixed-blood Indians of the White Earth Reservation who are attempting to get control of a part of the property which the Red Lake Indians themselves claim as their exclusive property.

Mr. DALLINGER. I understand when you were interrupted you were combating the contention of Mr. Ballinger that the Indian Bureau initiated the legislation of 1904.

Mr. MERITT. That is the point I attempted to make.

Mr. DALLINGER. As a matter of fact, while you have produced here a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, who is over the Indian Bureau, signed by two Senators and the Members of Congress from the State of Minnesota, did not the legislation originate in the interior Department? The matter might have been called to the attention of the Department of the Interior by the Senators and the Members of Congress, but was not the bill drafted by the Interior Department or by the Indian Bureau, as a matter of fact?

Mr. MERITT. We initiated this matter after we had been requested to do so by the Senators and Representatives from the State of Minnesota. Mr. DALLINGER. But you would not have done so simply because the Senators and Representatives of the State of Minnesota asked you to do so if you did not believe that it was the proper thing for the Indians?

Mr. MERITT. Why, we did believe that it was the proper thing for the Indians, and we had no objection to the action taken.

Mr. DALLINGER. So really it is a plea in confession and avoidance, when you stated that Mr. Ballinger misstated the matter, when he said that the bureau initiated the legislation?

Mr. MERITT. We initiated it by taking up the matter with the Red Lake Indians and procured an agreement with the Red Lake Indians at the request of the Delegates in Congress from Minnesota. My purpose in bringing this out at this time was to controvert the statement of the very able counsel for the Chippewa General Council, who was assisted in preparing that statement by the general council, and the Indians from the White Earth Reservation, two of whom are able Chippewa Indian attorneys, and two others are able, capable, and prosperous merchants in the Chippewa country. If the general council of the Chippewa Indians could have their way in connection with this legislation they would have this legislation so worded that the Red Lake Indians would be at a disadvantage. It is our purpose to protect the interests of the Red Lake Indians, and we have modified the draft of the legislation they have prepared so as to contain this provision:

SEC. 7. That nothing in this act with reference to the sale and disposition of timber or land or other property shall, except as herein otherwise expressly provided, apply to the Red Lake Reservation, Minnesota.

Now, if we can get the bill as we have drafted it enacted by Congress, accompanied by the jurisdictional bill, it will place this whole controverted question in the courts so that it may be decided by the

Court of Claims, and if the parties are not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Claims they can take an appeal to the Supreme Court for final decision. It is not really necessary to thrash it out here. But Mr. Ballinger has at great length argued this proposition and laid the foundation to get the legislation that he wants in this bill, and I am now controverting that and pointing out that it should not be decided by Congress, but that it should be left for the courts to decide.

Mr. ELSTON. Is the bureau, meanwhile, taking action that goes on the theory that the Red Lake Indians own that 700,000 acres and to that extent making the Government of the United States liable for decisions made and distribution made, on that theory, or are you in the meantime, in view of the possibility that the general Chippewa Tribe will establish rights to those resources of the excess land, holding back any distributions under acts that would prejudice the United States later if the general tribe's rights should prevail over those of the Red Lake Indians? I think that should be an act of precaution. Mr. MERITT. We recognize that the Red Lake Indians are entitled to the property within the Red Lake Reservation exclusively, following the act of 1904 and the act of 1916. We are quite willing that this question shall go to the Court of Claims for decision, and the department, of course, will conform to the final decision of the court.

Mr. ELSTON. Supposing the court should decide in favor of the general tribe and against the Red Lake Indians, what could be done by the bureau in the event of an interpretation of this law whereby the title of the Red Lake Indians will be brought into question and create a liability on the part of the Government?

Mr. MERITT. The Red Lake Reservation has not yet been allotted. The reservation is intact and the Government will be in a position to meet whatever decision is rendered by the court.

Mr. ELSTON. Even after the sale made under the act of 1904 and the distribution already made, will not the Government be liable? The CHAIRMAN. There have been none.

Mr. ELSTON. There have been no sales made under the act of 1904 ? The CHAIRMAN. No distribution to the Indians.

Mr. DALLINGER. Yes; there have.

Mr. ELSTON. There have been no sales under the act of 1904 to them, because you would have acted irrevocably on the theory of law that may prove erroneous. How much will we be liable for if the general Chippewa Tribe prevails? How much will we have to pay

out?

Mr. DALLINGER. They figured a quarter of a million dollars at one time.

Mr. ELSTON. This is not a question of money alone.

Mr. MERITT. I would not like to say definitely the amount of money that is involved, but it will be in the neighborhood of a million dollars. Mr. ELSTON. With the interest from the time it was paid.

Mr. MERITT. But, on the other hand, the Red Lake Indians are permitted to go to the Court of Claims with their claims against the Government. The Red Lake Indians believe that instead of them losing this case they will get a judgment that will give them not only the entire reservation, but a money judgment beside.

Mr. RHODES. Was that payment made under the act of 1889 or under the acts since that time?