Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

to the lands reserved by us and described in the first article (ending with the words "to the place of beginning") of the treaty with the Chippewas of the Mississippi, proclaimed April 18, 1867 (16 Stat., 719), and also to the Executive addition thereto made and described in an Executive order dated October 29, 1873; and we do also hereby cede and relinquish to the United States all our right, title, and interest in and to all and so much of the Red Lake Reservation as is not required and reserved under the provisions of said act, to make and fill the allotments to the Red Lake Indians in quantity and manner as therein provided.

Those were the terms and conditions upon which the other Indians made their cessions, so that the Red Lake Reservation was to be sold and disposed of after allotments had been made to the Indians then living upon it. Now, let us turn to the Red Lake agreement and see what the Red Lakes agreed to.. I will read now from pages 28 and 29 of the same document:

We, the undersigned, being male adult Inuians over 18 years of age, of the tribes or bands of Chippewa Indians occupying and belonging to the Red Lake Reservation, in the State of Minnesota, do hereby certify and declare that we have heard read, interpreted, and thoroughly explained to our understanding, the act of Congress approved January 14, 1889, entitled "An act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota" (Public No. 13), which said act is embodied in the foregoing instrument, and after such explanation and understanding, have consented and agreed to said act, and have accepted and ratified the same, and do hereby accept and consent to and ratify the said act, and each and all of the provisions thereof, and do hereby grant, cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States, all our right, title, and interest in and to all and so much of said Red Lake Reservation as is not embraced in the following-described boundaries, to wit:

Then the description of the lands reserved for allotments follows, and then follows this:

For the purposes and upon the terms stated in said act, which aid lands embraced within the foregoing boundaries have been reserved by the commissioners appointed under said act and as therein authorized for the purpose of making and filling the allotments therein provided for.

Now, can anything be plainer than that all of the Indians when they signed this agreement and ratified the act of 1889 understood that all of their lands except sufficient to make and fill allotments were ceded to the United States in trust? Section 7 of the law provides for the manner in which the property shall be disposed of. Now, I shall not take up the time of the committee to read from decisions of the courts construing that agreement; but in the case of the United States v. Mille Lac Band (229 U. S., 509; 57 L. Ed., 1306), the court held in that the Mille Lac Band had assented to that agreement upon the distinct understanding that they were to share in the funds derived from the sale of property on the other reservation, and that that became binding upon the Government as well as upon the Indians. Gentlemen, this is the crux of this whole controversy today: the Chippewa Indians, through their general council, ask the Government of the United States to deal honestly and fairly with them under the plain terms of the agreements they entered into 31 years ago. Can they ask less? Should they be expected to take less? The commission, under the act of 1889, was authorized to make reservations for allotment purposes. On the Red Lake Reservation. it reserved about 700,000 acres of land, although there were but 1,103 Indians residing thereon, and the commission, in its report at page 15, states the reason for the reservation of this excess land in these words: The Red Lake Reservation, which they cede to the United States, contain: 3,260,000 The number of Indians occupying the same is 1,168. The boundaries of the diminished reservation, from which allotments to the Red I ake Chippewas are to be made, are as follows:

acres.

And then follows a description of the boundaries.

This is larger than they will eventually require, but as there are swamps and other untillable lands therein, it can not be reduced until after survey and allotment shall be made.

That is the reason the commission reserved lands in excess of the amount necessary to make allotments.

Mr. RHODES. Did they not have the right to do that in the light of the law that you just read?

Mr. BALLINGER. I think they did. I think the commission, in the exercise of that discretion, acted wisely, and it certainly acted in the interest of the Indians. Now, Mr. Chairman, the question of the ownership of that Red Lake Reservation has been a mooted question for some time. The general council does not think there is a shadow of doubt about the ownership, but they have endeavored to induce the department to refer that question to its own law officers for an opinion, and that department has refused to

Mr. KELLY. When you say "they," you mean the general council, do you?

Mr. BALLINGER. Yes; the general council has asked through me to have that question referred, and I now desire to put in the record at this point a letter in which three or four questions were asked by the general council to be referred by the department to the law officers of the Government for a legal opinion that might be used at least in an advisory capacity. One of the questions they asked to have referred was this:

Under the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat., 642), and the agreements entered into, and cessions made thereunder, were all the lands on the Red Lake Reservation, not needed to make and fill the allotments to the members of the Red Lake Band provided for in that and existing acts, ceded to the United States in trust to be disposed of by the United States as the act of January 14, 1889, directed, for the benefit of all the Chippewas of Minnesota, or were all of the said lands reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of the members of the Red Lake Band which was only one of 14 bands comprising the Chippewas of Minnesota?

Then as a foot note to that this appears:

This matter is reviewed at length in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and subparagraphs “d” and "e" of paragraph 6 of the petition filed April 5, 1919, said paragraphs being marked on the inclosed copy with an "x" in red pencil at the commencement of each paragraph.

I desire to read now the answer of the Acting Secretary. This is dated May 22, 1919:

I have considered your letter of the 3rd instant, in which you request that certain questions relating to the affairs of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota be referred to the solicitor of this department for an opinion. You suggest that such an opinion would be useful for the guidance of the department and of the Congress at the special session. In view of the fact that the department has heretofore, and on careful onsideration, adopted its position concerning the points you raise, it is not deemed appropriate at this time to refer them as suggested. Accordingly, your requested is denied. Yours very truly,

S. G. HAWKINS,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say in that connection that there has never been an opinion of any legal officer of the department ever rendered upon the question holding that the Red Lake Band was the owner of the Red Lake Reservation.

Mr. KELLY. It was well known to you, however, at the time that you wrote the letter just what decisions had been made, and what construction of the law had been adopted by the department?

Mr. BALLINGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, then, you were asking a question which you well knew at the time, so far as guiding any legal action that had been taken was concerned, is that true?

Mr. BALLINGER. The action of the department had been taken without any opinion from any source so far as I could find out.

Mr. KELLY. It was presumed you knew what rule of action they were acting upon.

Mr. BALLINGER. I had no doubt in my own mind that if any law officer of the Government ever looked into it that he would sustain the contention I am now asserting. With the permission of the committee, I should like to have these two letters inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The said letters follow:)

Hon. S. G. HOPKINS,

Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior,

Washington, D. C.

MAY 3, 1919.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The indications are that Congress will be called in special session in the next 30 days. One of the first matters that will be taken up when Congress reconvenes will be the Indian appropriation bill. Certain legislation pertaining to the Chippewa affairs will be asked by the Indian Bureau. The legislation desired by the bureau affects property rights of great value that are in dispute. They have never been passed upon by any judicial or law officer. I, therefore, suggest and request that three questions pertaining to the Chippewa estate in Minnesota be referred to the solicitor for the Department and an opinion obtained thereon for the information and guidance of Congress and the department prior to the enactment of any further legislation touching this estate. These questions are set out in the petition I filed with you under date of April 5, 1919, and which was printed in full in the Tomahawk of the issue of April 24, 1919, copy of which I inclose. The three questions are as follows:

"First. Under the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat., 642), and the agreements entered into, and cessions made, thereunder, were all the lands of the Red Lake Reservation, not needed to make and fill the allotments to the members of the Red Lake Band provided for in that and existing acts, ceded to the United States in trust to be disposed of by the United States as the act of January 14, 1889, directed, for the benefit of all the Chippewas of Minnesota, or were all of said lands reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of the members of the Red Lake Band which was only one of 14 bands comprising the Chippewas of Minnesota?"

(This matter is reviewed at length in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and subparagraphs "d" and "e," or paragraph 6 of the petition filed April 5, 1919, said paragraphs being marked on the inclosed copy with an “x” in red pencil at the commencement of each paragraph.)

The Indian Bureau has for years treated this property as belonging exclusively to the Red Lake Band. The general council insists that this property belongs to all the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota of which the Red Lake Band forms an integral part. Legislation affecting the title to this property will be sought by the Indian Bureau in the Indian appropriation bill. The question has never heretofore been considered or passed upon by the law officer of the department or by any court.

"Second. Were all the unallotted lands now being held in the Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, Leech Lake, and Nett Lake Reservations ceded to the United States by the agreements entered into under the act of January 14, 1889, in trust, and those reservations abolished, and is there authority of law for the maintenance of said reservations at this time?"

(This is considered in subparagraph "h" of paragraph 6 of the petition filed on April 5, 1919, and is marked "xx" in red pencil on the copy of the Tomahawk inclosed.) For years the Indian Bureau has been maintaining six reservations among the Chippewas at great annual expense. The general council insists that four of said reservations were ceded to the United States in 1889 to be sold and disposed of and that there has never been any authority of law since that date for their maintenance.

"Third. Does the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat., 642), as agreed to by the Chippewas authorize the use of the trust funds accruing thereunder in defraying the expense of the Indian Bureau in the maintenance of its regular governmental agencies in Minnesota?"

[ocr errors]

(This is covered in subparagraph "i" of paragraph 6 of the petition filed April 5, 1919, said paragraph being marked “ XXX in red pencil on the inclosed copy of the Tomahawk.)

For a number of years the Indian Bureau secured appropriations from Congress of about $185,000 per annum out of the trust fund of the Indians to be used for their support and civilization and then used the money thus appropriated to defray the expenses of the Indian Bureau in Minnesota. The general council insists that the Indian Bureau has not now and never had any lawful right to use said funds for such a purpose. At the last session of Congress the Senators and Representatives who had the matter in charge became convinced that these funds could not lawfully be appropriated and used for such a purpose, and accordingly struck the entire appropriation from the bill.

If these questions are promptly submitted to the Solicitor with the request that they be made special a legal opinion can be obtained in time for the guidance of the department and Congress in legislation at the special session. The departmental_officers should desire an interpretation of the law and the Indians are entitled to it, and I hope the suggestion herein contained will meet with your approval.

In this connection I may properly call your attention to the beneficial effects that followed a reference of another question pertaining to the rights of new-born children to share in the Chippewa estate. The solicitor' decision of February 17, 1919, sustained the contention of the general council, protected about 1,000 minor children against the unauthorized action of the Indian Bureau and saved to them estates worth somewhere between $1,000 or $3,000 per head, as well as conferring like benefits upon the children to be born prior to distribution. It ended a controversy of long standing that had engendered much bad feeling on the part of the Indians toward the Indian Bureau and consequently the department, and I believe that the action that I have suggested will promote a better understanding and better relations than have heretofore existed.

Sincerely, yours,

WEBSTER BALLINGER.

Mr. WEBSTER BALLINGER,

Attorney at Law, Washington, D. C.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, May 22, 1919.

DEAR MR. BALLINGER. I have considered your letter of the 3d instant, in which you request that certain questions relating to the affairs of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota be referred to the solicitor of this department for an opinion. You suggest that such an opinion would be useful for the guidance of the department and of the Congress at the present special session.

In view of the fact that the department has heretofore, and on careful consideration, adopted its position concerning the points you raise, it is not deemed appropriate at this time to refer them as suggested. Accordingly your request is denied.

Yours, very truly,

S. G. HOPKINS,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. BALLINGER. Now, Mr. Chairman, when the commissioners went to the Indians and submitted the act of January 14, 1889, the Indians at first refused to deal with the Government officers upon the ground that the United States had up to that time failed to fulfill and redeem any treaty it had previously entered into with the Indians. Without reading it here, I am going to ask to have inserted in the record the parts marked on pages 143 and 144 of Executive Document No. 247. The CHAIRMAN. How long are those?

Mr. BALLINGER. They are short.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I desire to have them read before they are put into the record.

Mr. BALLINGER. Now, this is a statement of one of the Indian chiefs, No-Din-Ah-Quah-Um:

I wish to state that I think that what those commissioners bring is a very heavy load, but I understand it. I have been advised by no one. No one has invited me to touch the pen. What I have said is of my own volition. I should have a very small allotment of land myself, compared with those who have large families. When we heard that our friend would arrive here, we prepared to receive him as he should be received. The emblem that I see floating above us, that is the sign of good feeling, of peace, of friendship. I thoroughly believe that it is the intention to fulfill everything in. the agreement. We ought to be guided by the course of our relatives who have accepted this agreement. I myself believe that it is all done in good faith and that the Indians can rely on the fulfillment of everything that has been said. We are told that if we accept the propositions made the matter will be laid before our Great Father in 60 days, at the time when the first snow falls. We call upon the bishop. He is an apostle of Almighty God, and would of course not say otherwise than as God told him. I will ask these commissioners to raise up their hands and say that they will fulfill the arrangements made, if they are serious with us.

Now, turning to the next page:

I insist upon the raising of hands as to what I told the bishop. (The three commissioners then rose and raised their hands in affirmation of the promises made, the chairman saying: "We promise to do all in our power to carry out the understanding.”)

Mr. RICE. You have been deceived and disappointed many times, so that I am not surprised that you should put us to this unusual test.

Kay-Ke-Now-Aus-E-Kung (after telling the Indians that the commissioners had given the strongest possible test). The reason we take so much pains in this matter is that the Govenment has never fully kept its promises to us in the past and I can not be blamed for doing so when I am acting for my own benefit and for my own interest and the benefit and interest of my children.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Ballinger, will you tell us how all this argument down to the present moment applies to the bill, the legislation that you are proposing here? How does this argument apply to it?

Mr. BALLINGER. Mr. Chairman, the bill introduced by Congressman Ellsworth provides for the disposition of the Red Lake Reservation. The draft of the department is silent upon the Red Lake Reservation and leaves it intact. We want that Red Lake Reservation dealt with in this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Since the law is very clear, as you have stated, down to the present time, it seems to me that it is more a matter for the Court of Claims than it is for any legislation such as is proposed here. There does not seem to be any need for this legislation, and, as I understand it, legislation can not be created that would determine, merely, something that has already been determined. It is simply a question of somebody deciding whether the law already enacted is being enforced or not, and that does not seem to me to be a congressional question.

Mr. BALLINGER. I read these extracts from this report to show that the Indians had an agreement and that they tried to surround themselves with all the solemnity that is possible.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not referring to just the last sections you have been reading, but your whole argument down to the last moment deals with laws which are now on the statute books. If you can enforce those laws you do not need any other laws on the subject.

Mr. BALLINGER. I want to show the committee the messed up condition in which this estate is to-day.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »