Now, that would give to them the same rights-that is, to any persons whose names are added to the roll-the same rights that those who are now on the rolls have. As it stands, that is left in doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. What have you to say to that, Mr. Meritt? The amendment is that the words be reinserted that have been stricken out, that is, the words "agreements entered into with said Indians pursuant to the provisions of the act, and so forth." The amendment is to reinstate that.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, the officials of the Indian Bureau, who have gone over this bill very carefully, thought that inasmuch as the act of Congress approved January 14, 1889, was the controlling act, and inasmuch as there was quite a controversy as to the meaning of the agreement, and as the act had been carefully interpreted, we thought it would be better to have reference only to the act of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. And not go back of that?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. KELLY. Is there not as great disagreement in the act itself, brought out at this hearing, as there is in the agreement?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir; but there is a great disagreement as to the agreement, and the meaning of the agreement, and the language used by the commissioners and the Indians in negotiating the agreement.

Mr. ELSTON. Is it the intention, by striking out the reference to the agreement here, to disregard that entirely and then to act under the act of 1889 in any way that you choose, without reference to any agreement entered into?

Mr. MERITT. No, sir; but in order not to confuse the matter, and inasmuch as Congress has passed the act of January 14, 1889, we thought that that was what we here had referred to in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, as I see it, you want an objective. You want something to work to. You want something that is . definite to work to. If you let that go in the other way, they can go back to the days of Čolumbus.

Mr. MERITT. There would be great confusion.

Mr. BALLINGER. Right on that point I want to clear your mind. The act of 1889 was ratified without change or modification by the Indians, and the object of this is to designate it as an agreement, which it was both in law and in fact, instead of an act of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Then why is it necessary to fix it so that you can go back?

Mr. BALLINGER. No; there is no object here to go back. There is no such intention, but it is to designate it as an agreement, which it was, instead of a law of Congress.

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, here is the idea of the department—it seems to me it is well taken-no agreements certainly were ever effective and should not have been effective, except such agreements as were justified by the act of January 14, 1889, and it is clear to my mind that the intention of the department is to conform to the provisions of this act, and not enlarge upon the scope or purview of that act by simply extending it so as to apply to any subsequent agreement that might have been made.

Mr. ELSTON. But it says here: "Agreements pursuant to the act," and restricts any agreements that may be considered in this matter 173731-20- -24

to agreements made in pursuance of the act. Now, of course, that would throw back to the bureau the interpretation of the agreements, and the selection of only such agreements as are made pursuant to the act, and in that decision they would disregard anything that they thought had not been legally entered into as not binding. They would still have the right to disregard informal agreements or agreements which they thought had not been made in conformity with the act and not legally executed. I think we understand it now.

Mr. RHODES. But after all, those agreements could have been made and not now recognized as those consistent with the provisions of the act?

Mr. ELSTON. Yes; that is true. We have got an issue now, Mr. Chairman, and I think what the committee can do is this: We have got a clear definition of the issue and just what is wanted; now I think if we don't go too far afield

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That is just what I want to do; let us see if we can get the understanding of these attorneys, and the commissioner, and then we will do all this discussing when it comes to making up the bill.

Mr. BALLINGER. May I say just one word on that?

The CHAIRMAN. Just one. Now make your statement when you present your amendment, then don't attempt to subsequently talk half an hour on each one, because we will not get through with this thing in a month.

Mr. BALLINGER. The act of January 14, 1889, did not become effective unless ratified by the Indians, and so the ratification constituted an agreement and not a law of Congress; and therefore we are asking that the agreement be used as the basis, which was in fact the basis, instead of the law.

Mr. ELSTON. It amounts to the same thing, Mr. Ballinger.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meritt, have you anything further to say on that?

Mr. MERITT. I have this to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the change that Mr. Ballinger suggests is incorporated in the bill, it will lay the foundation for a large claim against the Government of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; have you anything to say, Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. I would rather reserve, if I may, Mr. Chairman, whatever I have to say on this point until later in the discussion.

Mr. ELSTON. Do I understand here that the reservation in line 17, excluding the Red Lake Reservation Indians from this allotment matter is agreed to all around? There is a reference here—“and except the rolls of the Indians residing on and belonging to the Red Lake Reservation and not allotted." That seems to have been passed without any comment here. I don't know your idea upon that.

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever is in the bill, my understanding is has been agreed to, and if that is wrong we had better have it understood

now.

Mr. MERITT. That is our understanding of the matter, Mr. Chair

man.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; then proceed with the next amendment.

Mr. BALLINGER. On page 2, lines 23, 24, and 25, reinstate the matter stricken out with the following changes: In line 23, after the word "enrolled," insert the words "and allotted"; and in line 23, after the word "shall" insert the word "also"; and in line 24, strike out the word "residing" and insert in lieu thereof the word "belonging"; in line 35, after the word "and," and before the word “allotted," insert the word "not." So that the provision would read, commencing with line 22 after the figure 642:

And who had not heretofore been enrolled and allotted, and said commission shall also prepare a roll of the Chippewa Indians belonging on the Red Lake Reservation and then in being and not allotted.

Now the object and purpose of that is to get a roll, an accurate and complete roll of the Indians who reside on the Red Lake Reservation. There is no such roll as that now in existence.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Henderson, have you anything on that?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I don't know the facts with regard to the roll. Mr. Ballinger says that there is no such roll as that in existence. My best information is that there is a regular annuity roll there that is kept up to date year by year and is reported to the department, and that roll will disclose the names of all persons believed by the Red Lake Indians to be properly enrolled as members of the Red Lake band; but whether that be true or not, Mr. Chairman, there is no one that knows so well how to make a correct roll of the Red Lake Indians, or the Red Lake band, as the Indians themselves. The tribal council there, with the aid of the superintendent is fully competent to make a perfectly correct roll of that band, and it is hoped that before this hearing is over it will be so arranged that there will be no need for discussion of this question. In other words the Red Lake Band hopes to be so completely segregated from the rest of this legislation that it will not be necessary to discuss this question but if they are not so separated, then the Red Lake Indians most urgently request that they be excluded from this provision.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, we are not in favor of this proposed amendment of Mr. Ballinger's, for the reason that we already have a roll of the Red Lake Indians, and for the further reason that the Red Lake Indians themselves would seriously oppose any representative of the Chippewa Council, who would undoubtedly be a White Earth Indian, having anything to do with the preparation of the rolls of the Red Lake Indians.

The CHAIRMAN. We will pass that for the present. What is the next?

Mr. BALLINGER. On page 4, line 15, after the word "incompetent," insert the word "allotted." The object of that is to make the designation of the roll properly descriptive of the roll. It is to be the roll of allotted Indians, allotted incompetent Indians.

Mr. MERITT. We have no objection to that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be passed for the present.

Mr. BALLINGER. In lines 20, 21, and 23, strike out the following words: "Except the Chippewas residing on and belonging to the Red Lake Reservation."

The objection and purpose of that is to include the Red Lake Indians in the roll of incompetent Indians to be prepared. The

object and purpose is to segregate the competent from the incompetent and that that shall apply to all the Chippewa Indians, including the Red Lakes, so that we may know that Indians in that country are competent and what Indians are incompetent.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you care for a statement, because already the committee must know the position of the Red lake Indians.

The CHAIRMAN. You can simply say that your attitude with regard to that is the same as would apply to any other such proposition as that, that you are opposed.

Mr. HENDERSON. I thought that would save time.

Mr. ELSTON. You repeat the same argument that you gave before? Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MERITT. We are opposed to this amendment for the same reasons stated heretofore.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be passed for the present.

Mr. BALLINGER. On page 5, commencing with the word "that," in line 8, reinstate the matter stricken out in lines 8, 9, and 10. The matter stricken out which the council asks shall be reinstated is: That said copies shall be filed as aforesaid within 30 days after the final approval of said rolls by said commission.

That relates to the filing of the rolls of the incompetent Indians in the recording offices in the State of Minnesota, so that people may know what Indians are incompetent and puts a limitation of time upon the filing of those rolls. We think it is important.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, if you will change the 30 days to 60 days, we have no objection.

Mr. ELSTON. That seems to be reasonable.

The CHAIRMAN. That is passed.

Mr. BALLINGER. On page 6, line 6, reinstate the word "forthwith." I will read the sentence so that you gentlemen will have the meaning before you. Commencing in line 4, with the commencement of that

sentence:

Within six months after the completion of said rolls, the Secretary of the Interior shall forthwith pay or cause to be paid to every such adult Chippewa Indian whose name does not appear upon said rolls as an incompetent, all funds then standing to his or her individual credit.

Now, as it stands it provides that he shall pay. The other day we had the words "as soon as practicable" in a law, and 31 years expired after that and it was not done, and we want some word here inserted that will enable these Indians, if the Secretary does not pay it to him, to go into a court and compel the payment.

Mr. MERITT. We have no objection to that.

The CHAIRMAN. You agree to that? That is passed. What is the next?

Mr. BALLINGER. On page 10, line 9, reinstate the words "together with accrued interest." Let me read now the proviso.

Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Ballinger, we have the bill before us and there is no reason to read the whole thing over.

The CHAIRMAN. But we will hear your statement on it.

Mr. BALLINGER. The object and purpose of that is to enable the Indian at the time of the payment of a part of the segregated fund to him to receive his interest on the money.

Mr. ELSTON. Instead of having the interest payment deferred?

Mr. BALLINGER. Precisely.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything to be said on that, Mr. Meritt?
Mr. MERITT. We have no objection to that amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. That is passed for the present.

Mr. BALLINGER. In line 10 change the word "minor" to "adult." The bureau evidently made a mistake in inserting the word “minor," because the intent of that provision is to pay the money to the adults. Mr. MERITT. We have no objection to that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is passed for the present.

Mr. BALLINGER. Lines 11 and 12, strike out the words in italics, viz, "upon his attaining his or her majority."

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right.

Mr. ELSTON. The word "adult" would import the attainment of majority.

Mr. BALLINGER. Certainly.

Mr. MERITT. That is all right.

Mr. BALLINGER. In line 14, strike out the word "of"-line 14, page 10" at the expiration of the tenth year the total sum.” Mr. MERITT. We have no objection to that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is passed.

Mr. BALLINGER. In line 22 reinstate the word "shall.'

The CHAIRMAN. And strike out the word "may"?

Mr. BALLINGER. Yes, sir. And in line 23 strike out the word "may."

Mr. ELSTON. Now, I don't know-that would leave a discretion in the commissioner, and if it is mandatory that he should pay it to any kind of minor or any kind of guardian, it might be a very unhappy thing. I can conceive of parents that would be no more worthy of receiving the money immediately-I am just suggesting this now offhand; I don't know what the objection of the department may be.

Mr. BALLINGER. I call attention to the fact that there is a further provision in this bill to enable the commissioner to withhold any funds from parents where proper use is not being made of them.

Mr. ELSTON. That means the money is already given to them. There is a contradiction there.

Mr. BALLINGER. That is future payments. The future payments can be withheld.

Mr. RHODES. I think the condition will be this: If the parent is a competent person to receive it, he should receive it; if not, some court or tribunal should designate the proper person and let that person receive it instead of allowing the fund to be retained in the depart

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. I am quite in favor of the word "shall," but very much opposed to the words "shall not."

Mr. ELSTON. Well, let us get the statement on that and then pass it. Mr. MERITT. Mr. Elston has stated the position of the department in that matter. There may be a few cases where it would be undesirable to pay out this money to the parent or legal guardian; and in order to meet that situation we thought it better to have the word "may" rather than the compulsory word "shall."

The CHAIRMAN. We will pass that for the present.

Mr. BALLINGER. On page 11, line 2, after the word "child" insert "either of."