Mr. STEENERSON. You mean whether there has been any judicial interpretation?

Mr. RHODES. Yes.

Mr. STEENERSON. Why, not on the precise point here as to what the rights of the other Chippewas as against the Red Lake Indians are, has never been before the courts for judicial interpretation. It has been interpreted by the department and by Congress. Congress has repeatedly acted upon the theory that I have suggested. They did so when they passed the act of 1854 and the act of 1863.

Mr. RHODES. I was only wondering whether there is existing law which, if construed by a court-that is, if judicial determination might be had of the question, if that might not solve the problem and relieve us of the necessity of further legislation. I sometimes fear that these repeated acts of Congress tend to complicate rather than simplify these matters. My attention was called to one other thing in the course of this conversation. I think it was made clear during the first session of this hearing that these lands have not been allotted, and I think I can see the value of the whole thing, but that perhaps some things depend upon the allotment of these lands, and until that has been done

Mr. STEENERSON. Of course, I am speaking from a practical point of view, not from a strictly legal point of view. The reason why the Red Lake lands have not been allotted by the department is because in the first place there is the last remnant of pine timber in the State of Minnesota. Some quarters of it would probably be worth $25,000, and there is other land that is practically worth nothing perhaps for grazing, $2 an acre or something like that; and then there is swamp land that you would have to spend a good many dollars an acre before you could reclaim it.

Now, the department had before it an object lesson in allotting lands of this kind, because they allotted lands on the White Earth Reservation, and some Indians got land worth $15,000 or $20,000 per eighty, because of the pine, and others got agricultural land or other land that was worth $500 or $600. There was an injustice and inequality in it, and for that reason the Red Lake Indians have continued since I have known them to object. They said, we don't want the same condition as occurred on White Earth, where there was an injustice done, and even if some of the lucky ones got $15,000 or $20,000, they were generally separated from it in 24 hours, so that it is not what we want, and the department has not allotted them lands because it was impossible to allot it and give a square deal to the 1,400 Indians on the Red Lake Reservation, or to the rest of them. The only way to do was to first, as Congress proceeded to do, establish this forest for the Indians, and that land is suitable for a forest, and under forest regulations you can continue to have a forest there for the Indians forever for their use, instead of skinning the land and leaving that land outside where it will wash into the lake in a few years. So that was the policy adopted on the recommendation and report of the Interior Department.

Now, they can not allot the rest of this land here. I talked with them year after year. These river bottoms here are some of them lower than the river itself in the ordinary stage. The project is to deepen and straighten this river down here to high landing, where there is an ample fall clear down to Grand Forks, S. Dak. Here is

the smaller map. I will offer that. These lands can not be drained by individuals. The engineers of the War Department, under an act of Congress, made a preliminary survey and estimated the cost of this dam to control the Red Lake at something like $850,000, and the opening up-no, I think about half of that for the dam and the rest of it for the deepening of the river. It is manifest that no individual settler can undertake that improvement, and these lands can not be allotted in severalty and used by anybody until this project is carried out, and we are proceeding with it as best we can.

Now, that answers the question why they have not allotted them heretofore, because it was not practical. They are timbered and they should not be allotted, unless you want to commit an injustice, and the rest of them are swamp lands that have got to be first drained, and the only way to drain is before you part with the title.

Mr. KELLY. The act of 1889 provided that before any offers of lands, the allotment should be made. Now, that was the doctrine of 1889. In 1904 the act provided that lands could be sold without these allotments being made.

Mr. STEENERSON. Wouldn't it be competent for Congress to change that?

Mr. KELLY. Why was the reversal made of those policies?

Mr. STEENERSON. I would have to look up the history of that legislation to answer that correctly. I don't carry it all in my mind; but I presume there was a very good reason for it. Possibly it was the fact that it was manifest you could not sell this land in the state of nature, because nobody could use it. You would have to reclaim it first; then it will be valuable. Why, those lands, ever since the time of Adam and Eve, have been absolutely useless. If we put in that 250,000 acres inside of the reservation that will be benefited by that drainage, it will be worth in my opinion, when they are broken off and drained-will be worth from $25 to $50 an acre. That would be $12,500,000. To-day they would not be worth anything. They aren't even used for grazing. It is so that at certain times of the year you can not use it for anything.

Now, you have got to take all of these physical facts into consideration, and no doubt Congress was advised in changing that law, and it was competent for it to change it. If they say we want to sell it one year, they can say we don't want to sell it the other.

The CHAIRMAN. You will concede, I assume, that these affairs of the Minnesota Chippewas ought to be wound up, and that they ought to be as quickly as possible relieved from governmental restrictions? Mr. STEENERSON. All of those that are competent; yes. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is what I want to get at. Mr. STEENERSON. Of course, there are a great many

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Whether you are favorable to general legislation that would look to that end.

Mr. STEENERSON. Yes; but I am not in favor of legislation that will tie up northern Minnesota for the next 50 or 100 years in litigation, and that is what this first proposition means. We could not do anything. We have just gone through a period of 10 or 12 years at White Earth where they finally, through the energy of the Department of Justice, settled most of the detail, but anybody that has lived in a country with unsettled titles knows it is like a pest, and these

suits would break out and attack lands sold by the State of Minnesota years and years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me carry that a little further: Through the representation, or through the council of the recognized band of Chippewas here and there, a serious charge has been made or very serious charges have been made against the management of Indian affairs by the bureau in the State of Minnesota. Now, of course, this legislation is looking to the discharge of the Indian Bureau from the affairs of the Minnesota Chippewas. Therefore I would like to have your idea-personal idea-as to the management of the affairs of the Minnesota Chippewas through the bureau, and whether your ideas coincide to any extent with those given to us by the gentlemen to whom I have referred.

Mr. STEENERSON. Of course, I have not heard the statements made. As far as the White Earth Reservation is concerned, those people have no land left. It is all patented. Either the Indians own it or they have sold it to private owners. It is called a reservation, but it is not a reservation to my notion. There may be a few acres where there is cut-over land that is not allotted, but they could not allot very many pieces on the White Earth reservation. Those Indians are mostly mingled with the white people. A great many of them move away from White Earth-a great many of them have moved to Minneapolis.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, but that is not getting to the-
Mr. STEENERSON. You were asking about the policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; whether or not you and the Indians you represent in particular, and with your viewpoint as a legislator in general, you are willing to say that the affairs are being handled by the bureau up there now to the reasonable satisfaction of the Indians involved?

Mr. STEENERSON. Now, you are asking me an opinion upon a matter in controversy. The Chippewa council, so called, is made up of the brightest and the ablest among the Indians. They control that and they want to control the Chippewa Indians instead of the Interior Department, and whether you should undertake to transfer the control of the Indians to this Chippewa council or not is a very serious question.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the meat of the matter involved in this legislation.

Mr. STEENERSON. I was advised about this act of 1904, and the legislative history of that, so as to know that the different reservations were from time immemorial recognized to be the property of the occupants. I am not quite prepared to criticize the Indian Bureau. I know very little about their management of White Earth. Those are all of these gentlemen that have come here, as far as I have observed. There may be some other reservations, and they of course had a conflict there, because under the legislation recommended by the advanced Indian, everybody is competent. The Clapp amendment removed all restrictions. As a result, you all know the Indians sold their land. Some of them all right and some of them all wrong, for a song, and some 1,200 or 1,500 law suits were brought to recover the land. That is not the fault of the Indian Bureau. That was the fault of the legislation and the department did the best it could.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you two or three more questions, rather in a concise way. You are familiar with the reason why this council was elected the present council of the Chippewas?

Mr. STEENERSON. No; I don't know anything about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you could not say whether they were elected by about 15 per cent of the Chippewas involved, or whether they were not?

Mr. STEENERSON. No; I don't suppose that they represented a very large part of the Chippewas. I don't know anything about it. I don't know whether they are incorporated, or what.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been stated by counsel of the Red Lake contingent who are involved here, that no more than 15 per centthat this council does not represent the desires and wishes of more than 15 per cent of all the Chippewas involved.

Mr. STEENERSON. I could not testify as to that.

The CHAIRMAN. And that he represents 85 per cent of the Chippewas as a whole in this matter.

Mr. STEENERSON. That is a fact that I haven't followed and I don't know anything about this Chippewa council, except I have seen it mentioned in the appropriation bill, and I know that Mr. Ballinger came in to see me a while ago, when they had a $10,000 appropriation pending, and I says, "Congress has taken away the money that supported some of these incompetents, paid the amount, and turned it over to these leaders," and I said "I am not going to advocate that." I did not pursue it any further. It looked to me as though that was kind of taking it away from those that needed it

most.

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing this committee had to follow was in that matter. The council had been recognized by the bureau, and we had no knowledge whether it represented 15 per cent or 50 per cent of the Chippewas. We are trying to get from you some facts on which we can absolutely depend as to whether or not the bureau was justified in recognizing this council, and if so, whether or not the committee is justified in considering that it is the legal representative of these bands, and is justified in entering into some sort of an agreement between them and the bureau.

Mr. STEENERSON. Like every other human being, I am subject to prejudice. I haven't got any opinion as to what per centage of the Indians they represent, founded upon knowledge, and I don't like to give the committee simply the result of a conclusion arrived at from general impressions.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I want to make this observation. If you, who are in the midst of that situation up there, are confused with regard to that matter, how can you or anyone else expect the minds of this committee can be any nearer in unison in this matter, or attuned any better to that general misunderstanding than are you? We are looking to you as a representative from there to give us some guidance in the matter.

Mr. STEENERSON. Well, it is a difficult position for me, because I have not investigated as to this precise question. Now, the White Earth Reservation is in my district. I think that the vast majority of the Indians on the White Earth Reservation are able to take care of themselves, and that so far as that percentage is concerned, they ought to be released from the jurisdiction of the Interior Department.

173731-20-17

I think they would be benefited by it, but the Red Lake Indians are not so far advanced. They have always lived in tribal relations, and if you should treat them like you do the advanced White Earths, you would commit an injustice, and I don't know whether the Red Lake band would be competent to hold an election to select-maybe they are if it is properly presented to them. As to the other bandsthose are the only two bands I know of. At least half a dozen other reservations of Indians-the Cass Lake. I have heard they are pretty near blanket Indians up at Cass Lake. If I was on the committee, I would require good, substantial evidence before I would decide anything against the Interior Department. I would not go on the presumption that they were wrong and that these others were right. I would have to have evidence. And it seems to me upon these questions that this committee ought to and could possibly have a representative committee go and investigate-a man that is reliable, or three men, or perhaps if you could spare the time of three members of this committee to go and investigate this whole question on the ground, it would be advisable. I would not take the responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a very large tract of ground to cover.

Mr. STEENERSON. Then you ought to have some one appropriate that would investigate. I ought to know more about the actual condition of the Indians in these two reservations than I do, but I haven't visited them in several years.

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Steenerson, you do not need to feel badly about your inability to offer a proper solution of this trouble, for the reason that Mr. Meritt stated before the committee a few days ago that while they recognized this general council to a certain extent that the department recognizes there is merit in the contention of those who do not agree with the council, and it was pretty hard for me to determine under the precise question that I employed in order to try to determine just how far the Indian Office itself was willing to go in its recognition of this council, and I drew this conclusion, that the Indian Office recognized this general council only to a limited extent; that, on the other hand, it indicates it recognized the wishes of the masses of Indians to a certain extent. So far as any decision on the part of the department at least there is lack of ability to determine just who ought to control, whether it be the council on the one hand or the voice of the Indians at large on the other. At least that is the impression I got.

Mr. STEENERSON. Well, I don't know.

Mr. RHODES. And it looks as if this committee ought to be assisted by somebody in such a way as to arrive at the facts in the case. I would like to know first whether this council reflects the views of a fair percentage of Indians. I should like to know whether they are able and willing to manage the affairs for the best interests of the Indians. I should like to know if there is a better method of meeting the wishes of these Indians than through the council. As far as I have been able to see the department is in doubt just as to what should be done in that regard.

Mr. STEENERSON. Well, of course, the assumption underlies your question that the Indians who have appointed this council are competent for self-government, and if they are, then their representatives of course should be recognized, but that is a very serious question.