« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
- - - . declaring that the right to share in tribal property should not be impaired or affected by such a severance of tribal relations, whether occurring theretofore or thereafter. One of the earlier acts upon the subject was that of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 562, c. 127, sec. 4), which gave to certain chiefs, warriors, and heads of families of the Stockbridge Munsee Tribe the right to become citizens of the United States, upon their dissolving all tribal relations, adopting the habits of civilized life, becoming selfsupporting, and learning to read and speak the English language, and then declared that they should not be deprived thereby of the annuities to which they were or might be entitled. That act and others of its kind marked the beginning of the change and were followed by the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 42 c. 131, sec. 15 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1419)), which extends the benefits of the homestead law to “any Indian born in the United States, who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of 21 years, and who has abandoned, or may hereafter abandon his tribal relations,” and then declares that: . “Any such Indian shall be entitled to his distributive share of all annuities, tribal !. lands, and other property, the same as though he had maintained his tribal relations.” - And next came act February 8, 1887, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388, which, in its sixth section, provides: “And every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States, and is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens, whether said Indian has been or not, by birth or otherwise, a member of any tribe of Indians within the territorial limits of the United States, without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting the right of any such Indian to tribal or other property.” Another cognate provision is found in act August 9, 1888, c. 818, 25 Stat. 392, which declares that a tribal Indian woman “hereafter” marrying a citizen of the United States shall become thereby a citizen of the United States, with all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such a citizen, without impairing or in any way affecting her right to any tribal property or any interest therein. These acts disclose a settled and persistent purpose on the part of Congress so to broaden the original rule respecting the right to share in tribal property as to place individual Indians who have abandoned tribal relations, once existing, and have adopted the customs, habits, and manners of civilized life, upon the same footing, in that regard, as though they had maintained their tribal relations. Not only this, but these acts, omitting that of 1865, are general and continuing in their nature, and therefore are as applicable to the Chippewas in Minnesota as to other Indians, unless the act of 1889 discloses, either expressly or by necessary implication, that Congress intended otherwise. In our opinion that art does not thus disclose such an intention. True, it speaks of the Indians concerned as “bands or tribes,” provides that all, save those on the Red Lake Reservation, “shall ” * * be removed ” to the White Earth Reservation, and is entitled “An act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota”; but the inference sought to be drawn o namely, that only tribal and uncivilized Indians are to have the benefits of the act, is materially weakened when we turn to other provisions, such as those directing that enough lands be withheld from the contemplated cession “to make and # the allotments required by this and existing acts,” and that the allotments be made “in conformity with ” the act of February 8, 1887, which expressly recognizes the right of individual Indians, who have abandoned their tribal relations and have adopted the customs, habits, and manners of civilized life, to share in tribal property. An inference of such uncertain strength is not enough to overcome the general aversion to repeals by implication, especially where a settled policy in legislation is involved and no reason for disturbing it is apparent. United States v. Gear, 3 How. 120, 130, 11 L. Ed. 523: Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 58, 15 Sup. Ct. 532, 39 L. Ed. 614; United States v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 146, 16 Sup. Ct. 247, 40 L. Ed. 369; United States v. Greathouse, 166 U. S. 601, 605, 17 Sup. Ct. 701, 41 L. Ed. 1130; McChoral v. Louisville, etc., Co., 183 U. S. 483, 500, 22 Sup. Ct. 165, 46 L. Ed. 289; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 84 C. C. A. 93, 109. 155, Fed. 945, 961. We conclude that Mrs. Oakes and Mrs. Jones, who formerly were members of the tribe, are within the saving provisions of the acts of March 3, 1875, and February 8, 1887, and so are entitled to share in the allotment and distribution of the tribal property, the same as though they had maintained their tribal relations, but that Mrs. Andrews and Mrs. Bent, who never were members of the tribe, can not derive any benefit from any of the acts mentioned; and we reach this conclusion with eater satisfaction, because it is in accord with rulings of the Secretary of the Interior in cases which are not distinguishable from this. William Banks, 26 Land Dec. Dep. Int, 71; Minnie H. Sparks, 36 Land Dec. Dep. Int. 234. In support of the claims of Mrs. Andrews and Mrs. Bent, our attention is invited to the still later act of June 7, 1897 (30 Stat. 90, c. 3, sec. 1), which reads as follows: “All children born of a marriage heretofore solemnized between a white man and an Indian woman, by blocq and not by adoption, where said Indian woman is at this time, or was at the time of her death, recognized by the tribe shall have the same rights and privileges to the property of the tribe to which the mother belongs, or belonged at the time of her death, by blood, as any other member of the tribe, and no prior act of Congress shall be construed as to debar such child of such right.” But of this act it is enough to say that its terms are such that it does not embrace the children of a mother, such as . Jones, who was living at the time of its passage and was not then recognized by the tribe as one of its members. As a defense to the claims of Mrs. Oakes and Mrs. Jones, it is alleged that all of the land selected by the former and a part of that selected by the latter has been “duly allotted'’ to other Indians; but, as this defense was not passed upon by the circuit court, and as the record indicates that the evidence bearing thereon is not as full and clear as it might be, we deem it the better course to leave the matter open to further consideration in the circuit court. And it is suggested, without indicating any conclusion thereon, that a question has arisen as to whether a decree displacing or annulling the existing allotments to other Indians lawfully can be rendered unless the allotees be made parties and be given an opportunity to defend. United States v. Fairbanks (decided by this court June 3, 1909), 171 Fed. 337; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, 387, 22 Sup. Ct. 650, 46 L. Ed. 954. In the answer it is also alleged that part of the land selected by Mrs. Jones has been specially set apart for allotment to Indians who may be removed from the Mille Lac Reservation; but no proof of any such setting apart or of any authority therefor is contained in the record, and no mention thereof is made in the Government's brief, so this defense must be regarded as abandoned. Following what has been said, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed in so far as it dismisses the bill as to Mrs. Andrews and Mrs. Bent, and in other respects it is reversed, with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
Mr. MERITT. Now, Mr. Chairman, leaving that subject, I want to call your attention to some other misrepresentations that have been made to this committee, some subterfuges, if you please. They tried to make it appear that the Enterior Department was responsible for the act of 1906, known as the Clapp. amendment, and the amendment of 1907, which resulted in the White Earth Indians being robbed outrageously of their lands and of their timber. Mr. Chairman, anyone who knows the history of that legislation knows that that is an absolute misrepresentation of fact—and when I make that statement it is a very mild characterization. They also attempted to make it appear that we initiated the act of 1904, when in fact we showed that the Members of Congress, the Senators, and the Representatives, petitioned the department in regard to this cession, which resulted in the agreement of 1904 with the Red Lake Indians, and which resulted in the Steenerson Act. If you want to know the history of the Steenerson Act, ask Mr. Steenerson himself, who is now in Congress and who represents that district; and if you want to know what people are trying to pull off here in regard to this Chippewa matter, ask Mr. Steenerson himself, because he knows not only what they are trying to do but what they have done in the past. They also tried to make it appear that the Interior Department initiated the legislation of 1916. More subterfuge, if you please. They can stand up here with great eloquence and with mock earnestness and talk about subterfuge, when in fact they are the men who are practicing the subterfuge on this committee. The Interior Department did not initiate the act of 1916, and anyone who knows the history of that legislation knows that that statement is absolutely false. That legislation was initiated by Representatives in Congress from Minnesota. And gentlemen of the committee, in connection with these acts of 1904 and 1916, where Congress has specifically recognized the right of the Red Lake Indians to the Red Lake Reser– vation, we must remember that Congress is twice on record as recognizing the rights of the Red Lake Indians to the entire reservation; whereas Congress is not specifically on record in regard to the other Indians owning part of the reservation. It has been clearly pointed out here that the commissioners who negotiated the agreement of 1889 promised the Red Lake Indians that the Red Lake Reservation should belong exclusively to the Red Lake Indians, and I have placed in the record here a statement by the Chippewa Commission to the Red Lake Indians at the time the negotiations were being carried out. They also tried to make it appear that the legislation required us to make allotments on the Red Lake Reservation; that we were directed by Congress to make these allotments; whereas the legislation, if you read it carefully, does not contain any such provisions. The legislation says “when practicable” we shall make allotments on the Red Lake Reservation, and I have pointed out that it is absolutely impracticable to make allotments at this time on the Red Lake Reservation, and it will be impracticable to make those allotments until that timber is sold and until that land is drained. The gentleman says that they are here trying to do something for the Red Lake Indians. Mr. Chairman, it would have been better if they had said that they were here trying to do something to the Red Lake Indians, but we do not propose that they shall do it. The Red Lake Indians themselves are here protesting against the action of these men who are trying to get this reservation allotted. Why? Because it will result in harm to the Red Lake Indians and benefit to the men who are trying to get this legislation. I have throughout this discussion refused to name names or to indulge in personalities, but I want to tell this committee now and here that if this legislation that these gentlemen want is enacted it will result in robbing the Red Lake Indians and putting money into the pockets of men who are trying to get this legislation enacted. Why? Because some of the men right in this room to-day own trading stores on the Red Lake reservation and possess fortunes. If that reservation is allotted and restrictions are removed on that land they can and would acquire the property of the Red Lake Indians; we are trying to protect the Red Lake Indians from being robbed. We do not want a repetition of the White Earth scandals, and we are going to do everything within our power to prevent that being done, and if it is necessary to use plain language before the committee of Congress, we will use that plain language when the time is opportune. Why, Mr. Chairman, I am told by a lawyer in this room that Mr. Ballinger and some Indians went before a committee recently, on Saturday, in connection with the drainage proposition of the Red Lake Indians, and represented before that committee that they were there representing the Red Lake Indians and were opposing the draining of the Red Lake Reservation.
Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, that kind of a statement ought not to be made. - Mr. MERITT. I have as my authority Attorney McDonald in this room, who made the statement to me. Mr. BALLINGER. Did you state that I or any person in connection with the general council went before the Drainage Committee last Saturday or any other time ! Mr. McDoNALD. I have as my authority a Congressman who stated that you were there Saturday afternoon and that you represented: the Red Lake Indians. Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, we were there as onlookers. Not one word was said to the committee either as to who we represented or what our views were. Mr. McDoNALD. The representation must have been made to the Congressman because he certainly would not make the statement otherwise. Mr. MERITT. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to compare the conditions of the Red Lake Indians to-day with the condition of the White Earth Indians. The Red Lake Indians own all of their reservation. They own all of their timber. Eighty per cent of the White Earth Indians have been robbed of their entire property. To-day 80 per cent of the White Earth Indians do not possess any land or timber; yet we have these White Earth Indians here trying to control the conditions on the Red Lake Reservation; trying to bring about the same conditions on the Red Lake Reservation that have been brought about on the White Earth Reservation, and we don't propose that those conditions shall be brought about. We propose to protect the property of the Red Lake Indians and see that the Red Lake Indians get their property. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Meritt, you have had your 15 minutes and the time for adjournment has arrived, and I desire to say that it is the intention, if agreeable to the other members of the committee, to have what we might call an executive session to-morrow on the bill, and we would be glad to have Mr. Ballinger and Mr. Henderson and Mr. Meritt here at the time. Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement in regard to that ? We have several delegations of Indians here who are very anxious to be heard. We have the Crow Indians who would like very much to be heard to-morrow on the Crow bill, so that they can go home, and it will only take a very short time. We have agreed on the legislation. There is no controversy. They ask for certain amendments which are agreeable to us. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the bill which goes to the Court of Claims ? Mr. MERITT. No, sir; it is a bill that has passed the Senate, and is now pending on the calendar of the House. The CHAIRMAN. You want to have that heard here in the morning 2 Mr. MERITT. We would like to have that heard to-morrow. And before we go into this Chippewa bill, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an opportunity, in the light of this hearing, to go over that bill very carefully before we attempt to discuss it with the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your intention to be here several days, Mr. Henderson 7 Mr. HENDERSON. I am here all the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen that I represent are very busy men. They are men of considerable affairs and they want to get through with this as soon as they can.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is a very busy committee too, and we have some other duties to perform besides holding hearings upon one question all the time. There are a number of others who want to be heard.
Mr. MERITT. The Crow Indians have been here several days anxiously waiting to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we can hear the Crow Indians to-morrow morning and then give up the balance of the day for you men to study the bill and be prepared the next day to come in and go through the bill with us.
Mr. BALLINGER. We are ready right now.
The CHAIRMAN. Then we will leave it that way, the Crow matter to be heard in the morning.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, what about filing a brief or supplemental statement ? Do you want to fix any time for that?
The CHAIRMAN. I think we ought to give them 10 days for that. Mr. RHODES. I think it might be well to state the time.
The CHAIRMAN. If that is agreeable to all the attorneys, we will fix the time 10 days from to-day in which the briefs may be filed, so that they may be put into the record before it is printed.
Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, can't these parties who desire to file their briefs and who are making complaint file theirs, say, within seven days and then we will have three days to look those over and file anything we want to in answer?
Mr. RHODES. I think that is a thing that is practical.
Mr. McDONALD. If the chairman please, it will take me three days to get home and three days to get that mail back here.
Mr. RHODES. Suppose we make it 10 days to file briefs and 5 days in which to reply, making it 15 days in all.
Mr. McDONALD. That is satisfactory.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. There is no great hurry about this matter.
The committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10.30, at which time we will take up the hearings on the Crow bili.
(Whereupon, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned unti 10.30 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, March 17, 1920.)
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,
Thursday, March 18, 1920. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Homer P. Snyder (chairman) presiding. Present: Mr. E. B. Meritt, Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs; Mr. Webster Ballinger, representing Chippewa Indians; and Mr. Daniel W. Henderson, representing Red Lake Indians.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. The session to-day is a semiexecutive session with the lawyers representing the different factions and the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and it is the wish of the chairman, and I think the