get a patent in fee to a tract of land worth between ten and twelve thousand dollars and that Indian sold that land to a man who had persuaded him to get the patent, for less than $4,000 and that Indian has since discovered what his good white friend has done to him. That is the reason for this rule not to issue patents in fee to Indians here in Washington.

Mr. KELLY. Then it is the policy of the bureau to put out a protecting hand and never trust them, never allow them to know responsibility?

Mr. MERITT. We are now issuing patents far more rapidly than ever before, but on that reservation you refer to, where we have issued a great many patents in fee, the Indians on that reservation who have received patents in fee, about 90 per cent of them are now without lands.

Mr. KELLY. Defrauded out of their lands?

Mr. MERITT. Sold their lands and been defrauded out of them and in a short time will be absolutely dependent upon their children for homes.

Mr. KELLY. As I remember, there were about six or seven thousand Indians declared competent in the last few years, yet there are Indians coming on faster than ever and these Indians will of course share in this property.

Mr. MERITT. The Indians coming on now will not share in the property of these reservations where the lands have been alloted and the rolls closed. Congress has recently enacted legislation which will close the rolls of these reservations and the money will be distributed and, therefore, the children who are born now will not share in that property. For example, no children born since 1906 have been enrolled on the Five Civilized Tribe rolls and no children born since the Osage Reservation was alloted in 1906 have been added to the rolls; these children do not share in the oil properties or any distribution of lands or money.

The CHAIRMAN. Except as they share through their parents' ownership?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir; therefore the statement you make is not in accordance with the practice of the bureau or legislation enacted by Congress. Now, on a reservation where property has not been allotted and the rolls have not been closed

The CHAIRMAN. How does this legislation affect a situation like that?

Mr. MERITT. This legislation here will, except as to the Red Lake Indians, enable us to have rolls of all the Chippewa Indians and to make this distribution among them.

The CHAIRMAN. Including the minors and unborn?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir. It is our desire on all these allotted reservations to close the rolls and distribute the funds as soon as possible. The CHAIRMAN. Let us proceed, if you have anything further. I would call your attention to the fact that I do not remember your having cleared up the Fond du Lac school matter. There were some very broad statements made and I would like to hear your statement

on that.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ballinger referred to the fact that Chippewa funds had been appropriated by Congress for administrative purposes in the Chippewa country and stated that he believed

that was an illegal action and that the Chippewa Indians would have a claim against the Government for these funds appropriated by Congress. The legislation on this subject has been carried in the bill since 1912, the amount appropriated differing from year to year. It reads: "The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to withdraw from the Treasury of the United States, at his discretion, the sum of $60,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary of the principal sum on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the act of January 14,. 1889, entitled 'An act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota,' and to use the same for the purpose of promoting civilization and self-support among the said Indians in manner and for purposes provided for in said act."

Certain representatives of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota have endeavored to handicap the department in the administration of their affairs for the benefit of the great mass of the Chippewa Indians. Some time ago Mr. Webster Ballinger, as attorney for certain of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, endeavored to prevent the department from using moneys carried in one of the Indian appropriation acts, which was extended by joint resolution of Congress when one year the Indian appropriation bill failed to be enacted.

This litigation was taken into the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for the purpose of enjoining the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and the Treasurer of the United States from expending funds appropriated by Congress for 1916, by joint resolution of March 4, 1915 (38 Stats. L., 1228). Under date of December 9, 1915, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia denied the injunction sought by the plaintiffs and dismissed the bill. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and under date of April 22, 1916, that court reversed the decision of the lower court, whereupon an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. A decision was handed down in this case under date of March 4, 1918, and an abstract from such decision informally furnished, reads as follows:

It seems clear that "civilization and self-support" among the Indians can not be promoted effectively by disconnected efforts, but must be accomplished, if at all, by definite, permanent plans operating through many years. And in view of the longcontinued practice of Congress to provide funds for such continuous efforts by annual appropriations, the circumstances under which the joint resolution became law, and the studied incorporation therein of the language of former appropriation acts, we think the purpose was to authorize expenditures of $160,000 during 1916, as had been done for 1915. A different construction might have occasioned disruption of wellordered arrangements for advancing the Nation's wards to the great detriment of all concerned; and to such unfortunate consequences experienced legislators probably were not oblivious.

This decision reversed the decision of the court of appeals referred to and affirmed the decision of the lower court which denied the injunction. There is authority of law for all that Congress has heretofore done in regard to making these appropriations out of these trust funds for the support and civilization of these Indians.

Mr. KELLY. Did that decision you have just cited go into the question of the authority of Congress on that appropriation?

Mr. MERITT. The question in that case was whether or not the joint resolution of March 4, 1915, extended the provisions of the pre

vious act so far as it related to the Chippewa funds. I have quoted the language as bearing on this proposition showing the mind of Congress relative to the appropriation and use of these funds belonging to the Chippewas.

Mr. KELLY. There is evidently a difference of opinion as to whether the joint resolution is illegal or whether Congress has authority to make appropriations from these funds.

Mr. MERITT. I do not want it understood that I am attempting to have this committee believe that the Supreme Court has passed on this question directly, but we would be entirely satisfied to have the court pass on it at any time. However, there is specific authority in the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stats., p. 645). In section 7 of that act is this provision:

Provided, That Congress may, in its discretion, from time to time, during the said period of 50 years, appropriate, for the purpose of promoting civilization and selfsupport among the said Indians, a portion cf said principal sum, not exceeding 5 per centum thereof.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have always kept our estimates within that 5 per cent limitation and I have brought this matter out to show to the committee that Congress has the specific authority to appropriate these Chippewa funds for administrative purposes as long as they keep within the 5 per cent limintation.

Mr. Chairman, it has been contended by some interested parties that Congress is without authority to distribute the Chippewa funds now in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Chippewa Tribe. They have more than $6,000,000 in the Treasury at this time. Congress has heretofore in an appropriation act in recent years, I believe in the appropriation act of 1916, made such appropriation and one-quarter of these funds were actually distributed to the Chippewa Indians. I approve of that action by Congress; I think all of these funds, except reserving enough for school purposes, should be distributed. I believe that Congress has ample authority under its powers and under the decisions of the Supreme Court to distribute all of these funds; and in order to make this matter perfectly clear to the committee, I am going to read part of the syllabus of the case known as Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, One hundred and eightyseventh United States Reports, page 553, as follows:

The provisions in article 12 of the Medicine Lodge treaty of 1867 within the Kiowa and Comance Indians to the effect that no treaty for the cession of any part of the reservation therein described, which may be held in common, shall be of any force or validity as against the Indians unless executed and signed by at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the same, can not be adjudged to materially limit and qualify the controlling authority of Congress in respect to the care and protection of the Indians and to deprive Congress, in a possible emergency, when the necessity might be urgent for a partition and disposal of the tribal lands, of all power to act if the assent of three-fourths of all the male Indians could not be obtained. Congress has always exercised plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians and the power has always been deemed a political one not subject to be controlled by the courts.

In view of the legislative power possessed by Congress over treaties with the Indians, and Indian tribal property, even if a subsequent agreement or treaty purporting to be signed by three-fourths of all the male Indians was not signed and amendments to such subsequent treaty were not submitted to the Indians, as all these matters were solely within the domain of the legislative authority, the action of Congress is conclusive upon the courts.

Reading further from this decision the last paragraph of the syllabus reads:

As the act of June 6, 1900, as to the disposition of these lands was enacted at a time when the tribal relations between the confederated tribes of the Kiowas, Comanches, and Apaches still existed, and that statute and the statutes supplementary thereto, dealt with the disposition of tribal property and purported to give an adequate consideration for the surplus lands not allotted among the Indians or reserved for their benefit, such legislation was constitutional and this court will presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith and exercised its best judgment in the premises, and as Congress possessed full power in the matter, the judiciary can not question or inquire into the motives which prompted the enactment of such legislation.

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have quoted that decision and placed it in the record so that this matter may be definitely settled that Congress has authority to legislate regarding Indian tribal matters; further in the case of Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, One hundred and eighty-seventh United States, 294, it was held that full administrative power was possessed by Congress over Indian tribal property; and in effect the action of Congress now complained of was but an exercise of such power, a mere change in the form of investment of Indian tribal property, the property of those who, as we have held, were in substantial effect the wards of the Government. We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint is made. In any event as Congress possessed full power in the matter the judiciary can not question or inquire into the motives which prompted the enactment of this legislation.

If injury were occasioned, which we do not wish to be understood as implying, by the use made by Congress of its power, relief must be sought by an appeal to that body for redress and not to the courts. The legislation in question was constitutional and the demurrer to the bill was therefore rightly sustained.

Mr. ELSTON. Do you not think that the effect of that decision would be that the bureau should be extremely careful to observe the acts in everything they do?

Mr. MERITT. I think it makes it absolutely necessary for not only the Indian Bureau but Congress to be exceedingly careful regarding Indian legislation it is requested to enact. I can not impress too strongly upon the committee the importance of scanning with great care all the proposed Indian legislation because we have all kinds of propositions submitted which, if they were enacted by Congress, would result most disastrously and bring about great scandals.

Mr. Chairman, in Mr. Ballinger's statement he referred to the alleged waste of Indian funds in the Chippewa country. I have placed in the record a statement of all the employees in the Chippewa country paid. out of Chippewa funds, showing their salaries, which are very meager, indeed, and it ought to be remembered that approximately one-third of these employees are Indians themselves; one-third of the employees in the Indian Service are Indians. Therefore, the statement that the Indian Service is operated to give jobs to white people is erroneous to the extent that at least one-third of the employees are Indians. We are cutting down the force in the field, and from now on there will be a gradual decrease of the number of employees in the Indian Service. Mr. KELLY. Have you made computation in that statement showing the percentage of the money appropriated for the Chippewa Indians that goes to the payment of salaries?

Mr. MERITT. I have not reduced it to that basis but have placed in the record a statement showing all the salaries and all the positions paid out of Chippewa funds. We are gradually reducing the activities of the Indian Bureau in the Chippewa country, and if this legislation we have proposed is enacted, it will within the next five years very greatly reduce the activities of the Indian Bureau, and we are just as anxious to reduce these activities as any one else. We have been in process of reducing activities recently-thus in April and October, 1919, the Nett Lake and the Grand Portage superintendencies, respectively, were discontinued and the Indians placed under the Fond du Lac superintendency and a number of positions were eliminated. In September, 1919, the Vermilion Lake School was closed owing to lack of funds and the Indians in the immediate vicinity were placed under the Fond du Lac superintendency. In December, 1918, the Cass Lake Boarding School, which was run under an independent superintendent, was placed under the jurisdiction of the Leech Lake superintendency. In July, 1919, the White Earth Boarding School, and one of the day schools on that reservation, were discontinued.

This will show that there is a tendency to reduce the activities in the Chippewa country as quickly as conditions will justify. I believe Mr. Ballinger, himself, will bear me out in the statement that the Indian Bureau in the preparation of this report and in this draft of legislation before this committee, was exceedingly liberal in meeting the views of the Indians and cooperating to the furthest extent possible in meeting the situation in the Chippewa country so far as legislation was necessary.

Mr. BALLINGER. That statement is specifically correct but with reference to these reductions they were made at the instance of the General Council.

Mr. MERITT. They were made at the instance of the Indian Bureau. Reference has also been made to the recovery of swamp land for the Chippewa Indians. The Indian Bureau has worked on that proposition for years and has made a strong fight for the recovery of these swamp lands and it was due very largely to the work of the Indian Bureau, but I would also give to the Indians cooperating with us the credit that is due them.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. What is the area of these swamp lands?

Mr. MERITT. Over 100,000 acres. Mr. Ballinger made a statement regarding efforts in connection with the disposition of the timber in the Chippewa country and at my request was good enough to refer to the fact that that timber is not under the jurisdiction of the Indian Bureau. I am not affirming or denying that there has been fraud in connection with the disposition of that timber, but wish to impress upon the committee that the Indian Bureau is not responsible. Mr. RHODES. Under whose jurisdiction is that matter?

Mr. MERITT. Under the jurisdiction of the General Land Office. The chairman of this committee asked me to make a statement in regard to the Fond du Lac School. The facts of the matter are these: The employees of the Fond du Lac School were transferred in September, 1918, and the school was then closed and has not been in operation since that time. Mr. Ballinger's statement in regard to that school was entirely incorrect.