PAYMENT TO SISSETON AND WAHPETON BANDS OF SIOUX INDIANS FOR CERTAIN LANDS MARCH 9, 1938.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. ROGERS of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 183] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 183) authorizing payment to the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians for certain lands ceded by them to the United States by a treaty of July 23, 1851, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment: On page 2, lines 6 and 7, strike out the words "or other persons who have prosecuted such claims" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "authorized to represent said Indians under contracts approved in accordance with existing law". STATEMENT OF HON. USHER L. BURDICK This Congress should stop for a moment and consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of this treaty in 1851. From time immemorial the Sioux had occupied the land involved in this treaty. It was their home-their ancestors were buried there. These people were ignorant of the white man's ways and uneducated. They could neither read nor write, as is evidenced by the way in which the signatures of the chiefs were affixed to the treaty. Not only that, but these Indians were not free agents-they were virtually prisoners of war. During the early administration of Indian affairs the War Department, and not the Interior_Department, administrated their affairs and controlled their lives. In the year 1849 the management of Indian affairs was turned over to the Department of the Interior, where the power to control the destinies of ward Indians now remains. On the day this treaty was signed these Indians were wards of the Government-the Government was their guardian. Being ignorant of our ways and uneducated, it would be natural for them to rely upon the honesty of the Government. They did not understand legal English language or any written English language. These were the facts surrounding the signing of that treaty. What was the wording of this treaty in respect to the amount of land purchased, the price, and method of payment? Here it is: The balance of said sum of one million six hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars ($1,665,000), to wit: one million three hundred and sixty thousand dollars ($1,360,000) to remain in trust with the United States, and five per cent. interest thereon to be paid, annually, to said Indians for the period of fifty years, commencing the first day of July, eighteen hundred and fifty-two (1852), which shall be in full payment of said balance, principal and interest, the said payment to be applied under the direction of the President as follows, to wit. No matter what the wording of the treaty was, it cannot be presumed that the Indians understood it, no matter what the finding of the court may be upon the subject, for these Indians could not be presumed to know a thing which none of them could read. There is no record anywhere of the proceedings that took place when the chiefs affixed their signatures-at least, no record has been produced. In order to be on solid ground the court should have known what these conversations were. No affidavits of surviving chiefs or testimony of surviving chiefs were before the court. The presumption indulged in by the court could only be arrived at from the fact that the chiefs did sign the treaty. Had the Indians been on equal ground with the Government-had they been free citizens and not wards of the Government-what about the wording of the treaty then? Was it usual for free people to enter into contract to purchase land and make payments of interest for a given period, and if all interest were paid, then the debt would be extinguished? This Congress can take judicial notice that during that day it was not the custom of the country, nor is it today. Was it the custom of the Indian Office to not pay interest on trust funds? No; the custom was directly to the contrary-that all trust funds of Indian tribes drew interest. That is the testimony of the present Indian Department, and it is true. If that would be the situation with respect to free contracting parties, would there not be an additional obligation on the Government because of its fiduciary capacity, being guardians of these very Indians, to at least treat them according to the custom of the country and the custom of the Indian Bureau? Čan a guardian take advantage of his ward in any court of justice? No; the courts have always held that in such a capacity there is a strict accountability required of such guardian. What they may do to others they cannot do to their ward, because the theory of the law is that the Government, in such a case, is contracting for the ward; the Government would be bound to see to it that the interest of the ward was protected. Under this treaty, a tract of land consisting of 16,650,000 acres was purchased for a consideration of $1,665,000. The Indians agreed to this price. In other words, the Indians sold this valuable land for the price of 10 cents per acre. This money was placed in trust for this tribe. What money was so placed? The purchase-price moneythe consideration for the purchase of the land, less some small down payments. No trust could be created unless there was a consideration. During the 50 years interest was paid; and it may be said that the Indians received, in all, at the end of 50 years, $3,400,000, or actually 20 cents per acre. But remember that during that period this land increased in value until the time of the last payment of interest this land could not be purchased for less than $50 per acre-none of it. No railroad lands were sold by the Northern Pacific Railroad during any of this period for less than $2.50 per acre, even in the Bad Lands of Dakota, and none of it in the Minnesota area for less than $10 per acre. Can it, therefore, be claimed that the Indians received just compensation, when the interest they did receive was a mere pittance compared with the actual value of the land which they did surrender? Can anyone in this Congress justify the conclusion that the Indians, under all the circumstances, agreed to take merely the interest on the purchase price and abandon the purchase price itself? If such a conclusion can be arrived at by this Congress, then I say justice to the American Indian is dead in this land. Is Congress willing to treat their ignorant wards in that way, when the Government solemnly promised to protect their red children? The following is a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior addressed to the chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives, relative to this proposed legislation: Hon. WILL ROGERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for a report on H. R. 183, authorizing payment to the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians for certain lands ceded by them to the United States by a treaty of July 23, 1851. This bill is similar to H. R. 7197, Seventy-fourth Congress, the principal difference being in the amount. That bill carried the amount of $1,860,000, whereas the present bill is in the amount of $1,472,000, plus interest at 5 percent per annum from July 1, 1901. The claim was also considered in the suit of the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians v. The United States, decided by the Court of Claims on April 23, 1923 (58 Ct. Cls. 302). This case contains, in the reporter's statement, a history of the claims of the Sisseton and Wahpeton Indians as submitted to the court. This particular claim is found in Finding VIII, pages 310 and 311. It appears from this finding that under the treaty as submitted to the Senate for ratification, the amount of the trust fund would have been $1,360,000.10, but as amended by the Senate and adopted by the Indians it was increased, after ascertainment by the Secretary of the Interior, to $1,472,000. On page 311 of this report appears the following statement: "It appears from the evidence that some of the members of plaintiff bands did not understand, at the time of the making of said treaty, that the payment of interest on said trust fund for 50 years was to be in full payment of the principal thereof, but understood that at the end of said 50-year period the principal was to be paid to said bands; but it does not appear that the provision of the treaty on this point was misunderstood by the chiefs and headmen who represented said bands in the making of the treaty." There is no record as to how many of the members of the plaintiff bands did not understand that the principal was to be wiped out by the payment of interest thereon for the 50-year period, but as found by the court, the chiefs and headmen who represented the bands in making the treaty did so understand this provision. It was so held by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in this case on May 28, 1928 (277 U. S. 424). (See Second Syllabus, and pp. 434 and 435.) From the decision of the Court it is clear that the representatives of the bands who negotiated and signed the treaty of 1851 fully understood the provisions thereof, that the amount so claimed was to be fully paid at the end of 50 years by the payment of the interest. It may be admitted that some of the members of the bands did not fully understand all the provisions of the treaty as negotiated. This would, no doubt, be the case in the negotiation and execution of practically every treaty which has been entered into by the United States. Without going into a full history of this tribe, it may be said that by reason of the Minnesota Massacre of 1862, which was perpetrated by these bands of Indians in connection with others, their annuities were forfeited and later restored. This is fully explained in the decision of the Court in the case above referred to. I am of the opinion that these Indians now have no valid claims against the United States. For Congress to modify the terms of this treaty between the Sisseton and Wahpeton Indians and the United States because some of the Indians did not fully understand the terms thereof would establish a precedent with reference to practically all Indian treaties. If the bill is to be enacted, only attorneys duly authorized by the Indians to represent them under approved contracts should receive any payment in the way of fees and expenses. This would require amending section 2 as follows: Strike out the words "or other persons who have prosecuted such claims," in lines 6 and 7, page 2, substituting therefor "authorized to represent said Indians under contracts approved in accordance with existing law." In view of the above, I recommend that H. R. 183 be not enacted. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentstion of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, 75TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3d Session REPORT No. 1923 CANCER-CONTROL MONTH MARCH 10, 1938.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. CELLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. J. Res. 468] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 468) to dedicate the month of April in each year to be a voluntary national program month for the control of cancer, after consideration, report the same favorably to the House with the recommendation that the resolution do pass. "The medical profession has today sufficient knowledge concerning cancer to very greatly reduce mortality from the disease if the public can be educated to avail themselves of this knowledge sufficiently early in the disease," said Dr. Bowman C. Crowell, associate director, American College of Surgeons, before the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee considering this resolution. "While the medical profession is striving for further methods of control, present-known methods should be utilized to the utmost. Publicity through channels suggested by Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers is the best means of public education." The object of the resolution is to publicize and to stimulate cooperation in the campaign to educate people to the necessity for early attention to symptoms which may mean cancer, and to persuade them to seek medical examination in the event they have such symptoms. There is no cost attached. The Federal Government is already appropriating $400,000 a year for the control of cancer, for the National Cancer Institute in the Bureau of the Public Health Service (50 Stat. 559). Men and women eminent in the field of cancer control, appearing before the Judiciary Committee, said that this resolution would be helpful to them in their praiseworthy efforts. Under the provisions of the bill, the President is merely authorized and requested to issue an annual proclamation setting apart the month of April as "Cancer Control Month," and to invite annually the Governors of the several States and Territories to issue proclamations also. |