BANDS OF SIOUX INDIANS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS CLAIMS OF SISSETON AND WAHPETON BANDS OF SIOUX INDIANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, April 9, 1930. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock, a. m., Hon. W. H. Sproul (acting chairman) presiding. (The Committee had under consideration the bill, H. R. 8921, as follows:) [H. R. 8921, Seventy-first Congress, second session] A BILL Authorizing an appropriation for payment of claims of the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians Whereas under an act of Congress approved April 11, 1916 (chapter 63, Thirtyninth Statutes, page 47), conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear and determine all claims of the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians against the United States, the said Court of Claims on April 23, 1923, after a hearing on the amended petition of said bands, filed March 26, 1920, and the answer of the respondent, United States, having made its findings of fact and conclusions of law, rendered its judgment thereon against the petitioners and for the dismissal of said petition; and Whereas under an act of Congress approved March 4, 1927 (chapter 522, Forty-fourth Statutes, Part III, page 1847), the said bands appealed from the judgment of said Court of Claims rendered against them, as aforesaid, to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there sought a review of four of the ten claims embraced in the original petition filed in the Court of Claims; and Whereas said Supreme Court on May 28, 1928, gave its opinion and rendered its judgment affirming the judgment of said Court of Claims as to each of the four items, a review of which had been sought in said court; and Whereas the one item or claim to which this act relates grows out of the agreement between said bands and the commission, acting on behalf of the United States, made September 20, 1872 (volume 2, Kappler's Laws and Treaties, page 1057), which agreement provided for the cession and sale to the United States of a large body of land situate in the then Territory of Dakota and more particularly described in the treaties between the United States and said bands made, respectively, on July 23, 1851, and February 19, 1867, which said treaties are fully set forth in volume 2, Kappler's Laws and Treaties, pages 588 and 956, which said body of land was estimated by the commission to contain eight million acres, for the agreed sum or price of $800,000, or the equivalent of 10 cents per acre for said eight million acres; and Whereas the said Court of Claims, in considering the claim of said bands growing out of said agreement of September 20, 1872, found, among other things, as follows: "In the making of said agreement of September 20, 1872, it was the understanding and belief of the parties thereto that the approximate area of the tract of land to be sold and ceded by the Indians under said agreement was eight million acres, whereas the actual area of said tract was eleven million acres, or approximately three million acres more than was believed to constitute its area. The value of said lands, either at the time of making said agreement or on March 3, 1863, is not satisfactorily shown by the evidence." Said finding further recites: 13 "In plaintiff's amended petition, filed March 26, 1920, the actual area of said tract is alleged to be eleven million acres and the excess area three million acres, for which claim is now made amounting, at $1.25 per acre, to $3,750,000." and Whereas said bands have never received or been paid any compensation whatever for the excess of three million acres over and above the quantity of land covered by said sale, as estimated by said commission, and that said agreement to pay said bands the equivalent of 10 cents per acre for the estimated eight million acres furnishes the satisfactory basis for the allowance of the sum of $300000 as the value of the excess of three million acres at the date of said agreement; and Whereas the claim of said bands growing out of the agreement of September 20, 1872, is not for the sum of $3,750,000 based on a valuation of $1.25 per acre, as set forth in said amended petition, but is now, as it was before the Supreme Court, a claim for the sum of $300,000, or the equivalent of 10 cents per acre, for the excess of three million acres over and above "the understanding and belief" of both parties to said agreement that the tract ceded and sold contained only eight million instead of eleven million acres; and it appearing that the sum of $800,000 is not a sufficient consideration for said eleven million acres and that said bands are justly, reasonably, and equitably entitled to be paid the sum of $300,000, or the equivalent of 10 cents per acre, for the admitted excess of three million acres of land included in said cession and sale: Now, therefore Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an appropriation of $300,000 be, and the same is hereby, authorized to be paid, out of any money in the Tressury not otherwise appropriated, the same to be paid and disbursed to said Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior with allowance for attorneys' fees in such amount as, in the discretion of the Secretary, shall to him seem just for services rendered in the prosecution of said claim, not exceeding 10 per centum of the amount hereby appropriated. Mr. SPROUL. We will be glad to hear Mr. Johnson, of South Dakota, at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. ROYAL C. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate very much this opportunity of appearing before you, and there is a personal element in that pleasure, becasue for 10 years I was a member of this committee. Mr. PEAVY. I do not want to interrupt your statement, Mr. Johnson, but it seems to me that there is a further matter that should be considered here before we take up this bill, and that is a matter that various other members of the committee, as well as myself, wanted to have considered. That is the question that was up before the committee formerly with relation to the chairman's bill for setting up a special court to consider and pass upon such Indian claims as this. If the committee should report out this bill, then other members of this committee, who have similar bills, will want their individual bills brought up for consideration, and that would destroy the very purpose for which the chairman has formulated his bill. Mr. SPROUL. Do you not think, Mr. Peavy, that that could be taken up in executive session after the hearings? I suppose these gentlemen have the right to present their arguments in support of this bill, and then it is a matter for the committee to determine as to what action they will take on it. Mr. PEAVEY. I did not know but what the gentleman would like to address himself to that phase of the matter. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, for 10 years I was a member of this Committee on Indian Affairs, beginning as the Republican who sat at the foot of the table 16 years ago, and finally, after those years of service, having the option of choosing between the chairmanship of this committee and the chairmanship of the committee dealing with veterans' legislation. I know the problems of this committee, and I know that this committee does more work than it is ever given credit for. It does that work voluntarily and freely, and without any hope of political reward. In this particular case, I, perhaps, have a personal interest, because 26 years ago I was the only white child on the Sisseton and Wahpeton reservation, attending an Indian school. You may recall that that was about the time of the great panic, and a member of my family was compelled for seven years to work in the Indian Service. I attended that school with those Indian boys and girls, and I regard them as among my most intimate friends to-day. I think I know something about the American Indian. He is one of the most loyal people in the world, and he deeply resents being buncoed or fooled on any proposition, and sometimes he sees through reports and other things in a way for which he is not given credit. I can remember all through my life hearing something concerning this claim. That is true, because this reservation is in my district, the district that I have represented in Congress for 16 years. Then, I was very familiar with it during the four years I was attorney general of the State of South Dakota, before coming to Congress. I have known throughout all those years that these Indians, with whom I meet every year, and not just at election time, have felt that they were not paid for the land that was taken from them by virtue of this treaty. That was because of a mutual mistake. They do not feel that the Government deliberately defrauded them, but they feel that it was a mutual mistake. Now, as the years have gone by, I have had some part in securing the passage of legislation which authorized them to present their claim to the courts, and I have followed those proceedings throughout with considerable interest. Two-thirds of the Indians who are affected by this legislation live in the district which I represent, and one-third of them live in the State of North Dakota. When this matter was presented to the Court of Claims, as you know, there was an admission in the record that there was a mutual mistake, and that 3,000,000 acres of land, at 10 cents per acre, was not yet paid for. Please understand that I am presenting this from an equitable standpoint, and not from a strictly legal standpoint. As I said, there were 3,000,000 acres of land not paid for, and I believe that if this matter were sent, under proper authority, to the court, the court would so find. Í believe that, because the court has already found it obiter dicta and, that being the case, I have no fear but that under a judicial decision of the court these Indians would be found to be equitably entitled to this money. I do not believe that this great Government of ours can really afford not to grant that right to these people, who are really the wards of the Government. I do not believe the Government can afford not to grant to them that which one of our own courts, a white court, says they are equitably entitled to receive. I believe that should be our policy in dealing with these people. I have become more convinced, as time has gone on, that we must become more liberal with |