« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
treaty, which resulted in the United States acquiring somewhere between 200,000 and 600,000 acres of land more than was ceded to it. The General Land Office has so advised the Secretary of the Interior, and that matter is contained in a confidential report, as I understand, and I am speaking from secondhand information here. The records in that case, as transmitted to the Secretary, are being treated as confidential, because they would disclose, if made public, a claim against the United States. Now, it is for the purpose of reaching that very claim and bringing that in here so that it may all be cleaned up in one suit that this amendment is asked, and if you are going to send the claims of these Indians to the Court of Claims, I ask that you clean up everything. The CHAIRMAN. well, you have the right to ask. Have you anything further to say on that, Mr. Meritt? Mr. MERITT. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the next amendment? Mr. BALLINGER. Line 5, page 7, strike out the word “subsequently”; that is to say, subsequent to 1889. Mr. HERNANDEz. Were there any patents subsequent? Mr. BALLINGER. Yes. The language reads, “Which were subsequently patented to the State of Minnesota,” and my suggested amendment is to strike out the word “subsequently.” The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to that, Mr. Meritt? Mr. MERITT. We prefer that the word “subsequently” be retained in the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Just give us one reason for it. Mr. MERITT. For the reason that it would bring up a lot of controverted questions that are so old and are so hazy that it would be almost . impossible for any court to determine them. The CHAIRMAN. And that word is used so that it will be understood that you are not to go back of 1889? o MERITT. The act of January 14, 1889, is the basis of these Clal IIlS. The CHAIRMAN. The “subsequently” mentioned in there means that it is the intention of this act that no litigation or claim shall date back of 1889; is that the idea? Mr. MERITT. That is one of the ideas involved, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Well, what is the other one? Mr. MERITT. The language would make it uncertain as to what would go to the Court of Claims for adjudication? The CHAIRMAN: What language? Mr. MERITT. Embodying the word “subsequently” in connection * the other language that Mr. Ballinger has suggested go in the The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps my illustration of the thing was crude, but does it not all mean the same thing? Mr. MERITT. The same principle is involved. Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, the position of the department, it seems to me, is very paradoxical., Turn to section 1 of the bill and see what jurisdiction is given to the court: That all claims of whatsoever nature which the Chippewa Indians may have against the United States, which have not heretofore been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, may be submitted to the Court of Claims for determination of the
amount, if any, due said tribe from the United States under any treaty or agreement or for the misappropriation of any of the funds of said tribe.
Now, then, after giving them jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim arising out of any treaty, it is now proposed to limit them to claims that have arisen subsequent to 1889. Either one or the other portion of the bill ought to be changed so that it will be clear and specific and so that we will know exactly what we are doing. Mr. MERITT. We have no objection to the Indians taking their claims to the Court of Claims, but we do not want language incorporated in a jurisdictional bill that will give a basis for claims that do not in fact exist and will cloud the issue. That is the reason why we think the language “or to which the Indian title had not been lawfully extinguished by cessions” should be omitted, because we make reference to the act of January 14, 1889, which was a confirmation of the agreement, and if we allow any other language to go in they will bring up the agreements rather than the legislation itself. Mr. BALLINGER. Now, Mr. Chairman, the next amendment proposed by the general council is on page 7, lines 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, to strike out the words “under rules and regulations to be rescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; and the proceeds derived rom the sale of such lands shall similarly be deposited in the Treasury of the United States in the principal fund of said Chippewa Indians” and insert in lieu thereof the following: “as provided in section 2 of this act.” Now, section 2 of the administrative bill makes provision for the disposition of any lands that are recovered back from the State. Now, why this further provision, which is different from the provision contained in section 2 of the administrative bill and therefore in direct conflict. Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, our objection to that is that the language we have in the bill is perfectly clear and can not be questioned, whereas if he refers back to section 2 you will note that section 2 is a very long section and deals with several subjects, and the two make it rather confusing. Mr. BALLINGER. It is the first paragraph of section 2. Mr. MERITT. We wanted it to be made perfectly clear. Mr. ELSTON. Is there any question between you as to whether or not the bureau is perfectly clear, or whether the methods provided in section 2 and in the details given here by the bureau are different? What do you say as to that, Mr. Ballinger? You say it is just surPlo to repeat' Mr. BALLINGER. This provision here changes the provision made in section 2 of the bill for the disposition of the same lands. Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Meritt did not touch that. He justified this extensive detail there at the point mentioned because he refers to the fact that section 2 will be a little confusing. The CHAIRMAN. That deals with many measures. Mr. ELSTON. Many measures, and he does not go to the point you make, that this detail is different entirely from the segregated detail that might be found in section 2. referring to this matter. Mr. MERITT. In order that I may make myself perfectly clear on this, I will state that Mr. Ballinger proposes to oil. out the following: “under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretar of the Interior; and the proceeds derived from the sale of such lan shall similarly be deposited in the Treasury of the United States in the principal fund of said Chippewa Indians.” My contentionis that
the language is perfectly clear, and it shows plainly what we propose to do with the money. Mr. ELSTON. With the proceeds Mr. MERITT. With the proceeds. Mr. ELSTON. In what particular way does the language he suggests differ from that 2 Mr. MERITT. Mr. Ballinger suggests that the language be stricken out and the following language be inserted, “as provided in section 2 of this act.” Now, in order to get my point, it will be necessary for me to read section 2. Mr. BALLINGER. Page 12, line 15. Mr. MERITT. Section 2, page 11, line 13: “That as compensation for losses sustained by the Chippewa Indians— Mr. ELSTON. What is the use of reading the whole section? If Mr. Ballinger can state just what particular provisions in section 2 covering the same matter here are different, as he says, then we can discuss it. Mr. MERITT. It relates to the whole section, which contains the several different propositions. Mr. BALLINGER. Page 12, line 15, provides as follows: “The Secretary of the Interior is further directed to have all lands heretofore ceded to the United States under said act of January 14, 1889,”—and then there is a difference there as to the words, “and undisposed of,” and then it proceeds, as the department has it, “And not included in any reserve and not disposed of,” and now, including this language here in both drafts, “including all lands that may be recovered from the State of Minnesota, or from other sources, appraised at their true value, which shall include the timber thereon, ! competent appraisers, at least one-third of whom shall be appointed by the executive committee of the general council of the §. Indians of Minnesota,” and then the section goes on down and provides how that land shall be sold. Mr. ELSTON. But one is referring to money, and the other to lands. Mr. BALLINGER. No; this refers to timber now on the very lands that are to be recovered back. The CHAIRMAN. This over here simply provides what shall be done with the money. Mr. ELSTON. I do not see that there is any conflict at all. It looks to me like the bureau's contention is right. I do not see any contradiction. One has to do with money and the other as to the disposition of money of somebody else, the title to which might come to the Chippewas by reason of this litigation. The CHAIRMAN. That is only money that is recovered from all the things that are set forth in section 2. Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think I am right about it. On page 7 of your jurisdictional bill, commencing with line 13, it reads: “Any moneys recovered from said State shall be deposited in the principal fund of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, standing to their credit in the Treasury of the United States; and any land recovered or the title to which has been decreed adversely to the claim of the State shall be disposed of as provided in section 2 of this act.” Now, section 2 of this act provides for the disposition of any land that is recovered from the State. Mr. ELSTON. That does not interfere with the proceeds.
The CHAIRMAN. That is in the bill itself? Mr. BALLINGER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I am looking at the jurisdictional bill. Mr. BALLINGER. That is in the jurisdictional bill that I just read. The CHAIRMAN. (Reading :) Standing to their credit in the Treasury of the United States; and any land recovered or the title to which has been decreed adversely to the claim of the State shall be disposed of under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. BALLINGER. Yes, that is the disposition of the land.
The CHAIRMAN. That is not the way you read it. It continues, "and the proceeds derived from the sale of such lands shall similarly be deposited in the Treasury of the United States in the principal fund of said Chippewa Indians.'
Mr. MERITT. My point is that Mr. Ballinger's proposed amendment will lead to confusion, because it refers to the entire section 2, and there are different subjects contained in that section; whereas our position is that this money shall be deposited to the credit of these Indians in the Treasury of the United States.
Mr. Elston. Is there anything in the provision you are speaking of now on page 7 which refers to land recovered in litigation?
The CHAIRMAN (reading). “And any land recovered or the title to which has been decreed adversely to the claim of the State shall be disposed of under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior."
Mr. ELSTON. All right, Mr. Ballinger; that section is all right, because there is a provision in section 2 that lands recovered shall be added to the general bulk of lands distributed under the general allotment system, and here you provide an absolutely inconsistent provision for the distribution of this very same land.
Mr. BALLINGER. That is my contention.
Mr. MERITT. We are required to dispose of this land, and we are required to deposit the money, and we will do it.
Mr. Elston. You are required to allot them and đo other things in addition to crediting the money, I assume from the language you read. Now, let us get this thing down to the issue. Are you perfectly willing, if it be found that the suggestions you have made on page 7 as to the disposition of not only the moneys, but also the lands recovered, are different from or contradictory to any provision in section 2 referring to the same matter, that we go ahead and harmonize them with section 2?
Mr. MERITT. We are willing to harmonize them with section 2, but we are not willing to have the whole of section 2 tied up with section 15.
Mr. ELSTON. But in the whole thing we have got to segregate the matter here and make them consistent with each other. It looks to me like that will end it.
The CHAIRMAN. Who will prepare the language to correct that?
Mr. BALLINGER. May I not read a few lines here from section 2, so as to make that absolutely clear? Commencing on line 15, page 12, it reads:
The Secretary of the Interior is further directed to have all lands heretofore ceded to the United States under said act of January 14, 1889, including all lands that may be recovered from the State of Minnesota, or from other sources, appraised at their
true value, which shall include the timber thereon, by competent appraisers, at least one-third of whom shall be appointed by the Executive Committee of the General Council of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, and upon the completion of the allotments herein authorized all of said land remaining undivided and undisposed of, or to which no valid right has been initiated, shall be put up and sold at public auction to the highest bidder at not less than the appraised value in tracts not exceeding 640 acres, said tracts to conform to legal subdivisions— and then it goes on and provides for the exact method of disposition. Now, this provision here changes it. Mr. ElstoN. It is perfectly evident that if the provision you have just read and the provision we are discussing on page 7 refer to the same subject matter, it would be absolutely foolish to have contradictory provisions in the same act referring to the same subject, but now they are harmonious, absolutely so; they are exactly identical. The CHAIRMAN. If you cut this language out, “and any land recovered or the title to which has been decreed adversely to the claim of the State shall be disposed of under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior,” would not that correct the whole thing Mr. BALLINGER. If you commence with the word, “under,” in line 18, and strike out the word “under” in line 18, and strike out lines 19, 20, 21, 22, and in line 23 the letters “dians,” being the last part of the word “Indians,” and then substitute the language, “as provided in section 2 of this act,” you will harmonize both sections as completely as I can harmonize them. The CHAIRMAN. What is the next suggested amendment? Mr. BALLINGER. On line 25, page 7, strike out the words, “under existing.” . On page 8, strike out all of lines 1 and 2. Thet is the same question— Mr. MERITT. Read the amendment, please. Mr. BALLINGER. Well, the provision as amended— The CHAIRMAN. Is that he end of it? Mr. BALLINGER. No, sir. Mr. MERITT. He proposes to strike out the words, “under existing law, subject to the sanction and approval of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior.” Mr. ELston. With respect to what? Mr. MERITT. With respect to the attorney's fee. The CHAIRMAN. What is the next? Mr. BALLINGER. On page 8, line 14, strike out the period and insert a comma and o the following: “and shall furnish copies of any such letters, papers, documents, and public records as said attorneys may desire for use in said case free of cost.” ERITT. We have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman. It goes in after the word “attorneys” in line 14. Mr. BALLINGER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Does that end the suggestions? Mr. BALLINGER. Just one more, Mr. Chairman, and that is all. The general council asks that this be added at the end of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. At the end of this bill? Mr. BALLINGER. At the end of this bill; yes, sir. This provision as section 16, which is as follows: This act shall become effective and binding }. the Chippewa Indians of Minne
sota when ratified and accepted by a majority of their general council, the members of which shall be selected at an election held subsequent to the approval of this act