Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Mr. BROKER. Wheat and small grains.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further to say to us in regard to the matter?

Mr. BROKER. No. Of course, I want to have a chance to state my objections to the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee has given you a right to state your objections in writing, and if you want to say anything further verbally we will listen to that.

Mr. BROKER. There is one particular thing—the enrollment adding to the roll; I don't believe there is anyone to add to the roll.

The CHAIRMAN. You rather think there are too many on the roll already?

Mr. BROKER. Yes; too many on the roll that ought not to be on the roll.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is a matter that we can not settle right here now.

Mr. BROKER. And, of course, the desire of the Indians is to have the opportunity to take this matter to a court and have the equity established, just the same as in a probate case.

The CHAIRMAN. That is just exactly what this bill designs to do, as I understand it.

Mr. BROKER. Then the Indians also want to have that opportunity. They never were satisfied with the ruling of the department, although the department did not rule on it.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not agree on that. You say the Indians are not satisfied, and yet we have just listened to two Indians who say they are fully satisfied with the way the department is handling the matter, and they seem to be full Indians; at least, claim to be full-blood Indians.

Mr. BROKER. Perhaps they are satisfied with the administration part of it, but I do not believe they are satsified that this ruling by the department-with this ruling of the department; and that has been the conflict, and that has been the bone of contention all along.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the ruling put into the record ?
Mr. BROKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. RHODES. You stated your occupation?
Mr. BROKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RHODES. And Chief Walters referred to the occupation of another gentleman present; what is his business?

Mr. BROKER. Mr. Walters?
Mr. RHODES. Yes.

Mr. BROKER. I don't know; I suppose he lives on his allotment; whether he is farming or not I could not say.

Mr. RHODES. He seems to be a very energetic citizen, too much so to be without an occupation.

Mr. BROKER. He is a kind of a leader amongst his men, sir. (Mr. Broker's written statement follows:)

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 16, 1920. Hon. HOMER P. SNYDER,

Chairman House Committee on Indian Afiairs: In compliance to your committee request that I make a statement in writing I will confine my statement entirely to the bill now pending. In the first place, the Indians that I represent object to anyone being added to the rolls of the Chippewa Indians for the reason that as many as 200 or more of the descendants of the so-called Lake Superior scrippers have repeatedly endeavored to get on the rolls of the Chippewa Indians,

173731–2019

and another thing as the bill provides in section 1 that the action of the commission therein provided is final and conclusive, no appeal is provided in case the commission should misappropriate their authority as to their decision in any case. I desire to say the terms provided in the bill for sale of surplus land are not good terms. Section 3 of H. R. 12973 provides for the conveyance of school land to the State. I desire to say while the system may be well applied to part of the White Earth Reservation it will not be practical as applied to the other reservations, as the Indians people generally know nothing about township government. It would be well for the officials in authority, jointly with the State officials

, to make a thorough investigation of the matter before abolishing the Indian schools. Section 4 provides for the establishment of town sites. Town sites are not desired anywhere only on the Red Lake Reservation; therefore the General Council of the Red Lake Band of Indians should be consulted in this matter.

Section 9, as to my understanding, has a tendency to take treaty rights away from the Indians. In all I oppose the bill entirely on the grounds that it has no place alongside or in a jurisdictional act.

JOHN BROKER. The CHAIRMAN. Who is next? Mr. MERITT. Attorney McDonald would like to be heard now.

The CHAIRMAN. As we are trying to close to-day, can you do with 10 minutes ?

Mr. McDonald. It is out of the question. The CHAIRMAN. How about 15? Mr. McDONALD. I would ask your committee to give me until adjournment hour at 1 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses ?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir; two Red Lake Indians and Attorney Henderson.

The CHAIRMAN. Can't you start in and make your statement as brief as possible and submit the balance in writing ?

Mr. McDONALD. I will do this: I will start in, and then stop if the committee desires at any time.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to talk in behalf of the Red Lakes? Mr. McDONALD. They will get the benefit. The CHAIRMAN. Then, why do we need to hear from the other two witnesses on Red Lake? Are they in accord with you on this matter?

Mr. McDONALD. I think they are with reference to the Red Lake situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you could embody in your statement that of the other two, wouldn't that be satisfactory and agreeable ?

Mr. MERITT. They should be heard, inasmuch as they are delegates here.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. McDonald, you may go ahead and see where we finish up.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. E. MCDONALD.

Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I assure you that you are not as anxious to finish this as I am. I have been here since Monday and am very anxious to be at home.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McDonald has already qualified.

Mr. McDONALD. Let me speak with reference to the treaties. I have here volume 18 of a publication of the Bureau of American Ethnology, and it is the same volume used by Congressman Steenerson. I endeavored to secure this, and it is now presented to your committee by the bureau at the suggestion of Dr. J. Walter Fewkes. It is difficult to handle, and I have mislaid my glasses, but if I may

move over here I will try to let the entire committee see this entire situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, are you going to make a statement about that condition different from what Mr. Steenerson did ?

Mr. McDONALD. It will be additional.
The CHAIRMAN. Additional, but not contrary to what he said?
Mr. McDONALD. I may cover briefly some things he said.

I refer to double page 33 of the maps. In this book will be found maps showing the cessions and the reservations on them from the United States. This yellow [indicating] here, No. 289, the southwestern portion of the State, was ceded by the Sioux. You will notice another small cession, 243, and then we come to the cession No. 242 on this page [indicating). That cession, Mr. Chairman, included a large area in Wisconsin, so that when that cession was, in 1838—this little cession here indicating], 268, was in 1846. This little cession or reservation, 269, that was a reservation in 1847. That was ceded to the Winnebagoes, and it was intended as a bumper State between the Sioux and the Chippewas.

Now, in 1854, this large area around Duluth was ceded to the United States; it is numbered 332—1854. Now, in 1855, this territory, No. 357, was ceded to the United States with several small reservations. Those reservations--to start with, they are described in the treaty-were four friendly agencies on the south side of Mille Lacs Creek, which was in the territory ceded to the United States by the treaty of 1837; another little reservation-you will see the areas here, and I hope you will consult this—was the Gull Lake Reservation near Brainerd; another little reservation called Sandy Lake--this is Rabbit Lake [indicating)--and another at Grand Rapids. Then another one, Mr. Chairman, a small reservation here, Leech Lake; and another one, a little one, around Winnibigoshish; and another one around Cass Lake.

Now, with the exception of this, there remain in Minnesota but Bois Forte Reservation, 462, ceded in 1862, and this territory marked yellow and green [indicating] 446 and 445.

Now, that was the condition of the Indian reservations in Minnesota. These Indians, the Pembinas and Red Lake Indians, enjoyed this property without any cession or act on the part of the United States; their rights were rights of persons in possession.

Now, this treaty of 1855 contained this clause; it goes directly to the question of the rights of all other Indians upon the Red Lake. territory, except the Red Lake Indians.

I read now from the treaty with the Chippewa Indians of 1855, proclaimed April 7, 1855. Now, mark you: ARTICLE I. The Mississippi

Now, the Mississippi Indians were those that lived up and down the Mississippi River, as far up as Winnibigoshish. The Pillagers, there were two bands, one in the Western part of the State that joined in this cession to the Winnebagos. The Mississippi or Pillager Indians hereby cede and sell to the United States.

Now, the Winnibigoshish Indians, if you please, gentlemen, were located at Red Lake; they were no part of the Red Lake or Pembina Bands. Those classes of Indians ceded and sold and conveyed all that territory in this color (indicating on map), which is the large

extent occupying one-third of the north half of the entire State of Minnesota, reserving only the small isolated pieces you see here on this map [indicating).

Now, gentlemen, if you have occasion to use this book you will see these numbers 332 refer to a schedule of land cessions in the first part of the book, and that gives you an abstract of the treaty, or the act of Congress, relating to the territory indicated on that map. Each one of them make such a reference. I will not read any of them, because I want to hasten on.

Now, after that description we find this language--and it has not been called to the attention of your committee, and unless you made a careful survey of this entire act it might escape your attention.

And the said Indians do further fully and entirely relinquish and convey to the United States any and all right, title, and interest of whatsoever nature the same may. be which they may now have in and to any other lands in the Territory of Minnesota or elsewhere

Now, it is contended by the gentlemen who represent the general council—I read from section 1, the last portion of that act. It is the contention of the gentlemen who represent the General Council of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota—the voluntary association—that at the time that treaty of 1855 was made, and later in 1889 when the Nelson Act was passed and submitted to the Chippewas, that the Chippewa Indians that he represents, other than the Red Lakes, and the Pembinas, had a common interest in the lands in the State of Minnesota. Such a contention can not find any support by reason of the fact that in 1855 they ceded all their right, title, and interest of whatsoever nature the same may be,” which was based upon their possession “which they may now have in and to any other lands in the Territory of Minnesota or elsewhere.” There is no act of Congress

that gives to these gentlemen that are now seeking to claim an interest in the Red Lake Indians' property any right, title, or interest therein whatsoever; and it is well known that their title to the land was by reason of the fact that they were in possession thereof as members of some Indian tribe, nation, or band.

Now, let me hastily—and I do hate to be hurried, and I am obliged to hurry, and I am not blaming the committee—let me hastily call attention to the Nelson Act. I will say to you gentlemen I am somewhat familiar with this act, because we tried to prevent Section VII of that treaty being enforced in our territory. I brought suit to restrain "Pussyfoot” Johnson from interfering with our saloons and breweries. Calling attention to the so-called Nelson Act, passed and approved January 14, 1889, and that language is important here in this consideration. And may I read, Mr. Chairman, because my remarks will be connected to it.

That the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed within sixty days after the passage of this act, to designate and appoint three commissioners, one of whom shall be a citizen of Minnesota, whose duty it shall be, as soon as practicable after their appointment, to negotiate with all the different bands or tribes of Chippewa Indians

The word “nation” has not been applied to any of the Chippewa Indians since, I think, 1847. bands or tribes of Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota for the complete cession and relinquishment in writing of all their title and interest in and to all the reservations of said Indians in the State of Minnesota, except the White Earth and Red Lake

Reservations, and to all and so much of these two reservations as, in the judgment of said commission, is not required to make and fill the allotments required by this and existing acts, and shall have been reserved by the commissioners for said purposes.

Now, it excepted from the effect of this act all that portion of the Red Lake Reservation, which was this large territory in this yellow on this map [indicating! 446; the Pembina territory having been ceded in 1863 by the Pembina Indians and the Red Lakes, so that this vast territory was referred to in that act and that portion of it that, in the language of the statute, was, “in the judgment of said commission required to make and fill all allotments required by this and existing acts,” and excepting that portion "which was reserved by the commission for said purposes.”

Now, it was the judgment of these commissioners that the amount to be retained for that purpose, and the amount that was not by the Red Lake Indians ceded, should be the area shown in this map on page 35 in yellow within the border of the other map, which showed the original Red Lake Reservation. Now, that area was described by the commissioners as being the territory which in the language of the statute "except the White Earth and Red Lake Reservations, and to all and so much of those two reservations as, in the judgment of said commission, is not required to make and fill the allotment required by this and existing acts, and shall not have been reserved by the commissioners for said purposes.”

It was not, Mr. Chairman; the amount to be reserved was not the amount of land necessary to allot the Red Lake Indians yesterday, to-day, or to-morrow, but the amount that was reserved from that act was the amount that in the judgment of the commissioners then was deemed necessary to fill the allotments of the Red Lake Indians and the amounts which they “ reserved for said purposes. " So that, in my opinion, that question was settled then and there when the judgment of those commissioners was announced. It can not be settled now by a determination of how much land is needed to allot those Indians. Everything was ceded except that which those commissioners deemed necessary for that purpose, and they deemed that tract necessary which you see on that map in yellow (indicating).

Now, I am not going into the question of this Thief River Falls cession, except to call it to your attention; it is at the west end-Congressman Steenerson said it was at the east end-it should have been west. It is this portion that I have put within the boundaries of the red lines. Now, may I not call your attention to this author's findings, the reference to this subject? Refer to page 934 of the schedule of Indian land cessions found in this volume, and you will read this is the conclusion of the editor as to what reserved and what did not come within the Nelson act:

Ceded to the United States all their title and interest in so much of the Red Lake reservations as is not embraced in the following boundaries: Commencing at a point on Thief River where the same crosses Marshall and Polk Counties and then they go on and describe, Mr. Chairman, this area that I have pointed out to you; they describe that area in yellow that is within this blue as being in their judgment necessary for the purpose of the allotment of the Red Lake Indians, and it was so set aside, and it never came within the force or application of the Nelson Act.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »