once has it regardled that it had any legal or moral obligation, although I suppose that in a sense it has considered it a moral obligation, and any serious-minded person looking over the records can not help but recognize that the Federal Government has at least a moral obligation to the Indians of California.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you know about these treaties at the time they were rejected? Is it not a fact that for a period of years the provisions of the treaties were carried out by Congress?

Mr. COLLETT. Not one penny was ever paid according to the record, not as compensation. About $4,000,000 has been appropriated to relieve suffering, but that has been given only because of special activities on the part of the friends of the Indians, and it is evident by the records of Congress that those appropriations, in the main, were given grudgingly and in order to dismiss the subject and get the people away who were asking for those appropriations.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that under Mr. Raker's urgent pleas from time to time certain moneys have been appropriated in behalf of these Indians to build them homes?

Mr. COLLETT. As presents and gratuities.

Mr. RAKER. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. There is something done for them.

Mr. COLLETT. About $4,000,000 altogether. During the last 12 years the records show that the Indians who attend the Riverside School are chiefly from States other than California.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not a fact; and that, of course, is not due to any bar that is put against the Indian children of California going there if they put themselves in shape to do it.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There are other good schools iu California.

Mr. CARTER. A large majority of them are from California and Arizona.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to have the record clear as to what has been done to some extent for the California Indians.

Mr. COLLETT. During the last 12 years appropriations have been made to to the amount of about $360,000. About 61 per cent, according to the best information I can get, has gone into overhead expenses. The average amount, according to the most recent records, that has reached the individual Indian has beem $15.10. The average price paid for the land has been $11.74 per acre. I do not have any reason to believe that there has been any bad faith in the buying of this land, but, at least extremely poor judgment has been applied to the land purchases for those Indians, and the Indians here with us who know the facts will bear me out.

Mr. CARTER. How many Indians in California?

Mr. COLLETT. Twenty thousand.

Mr. CARTER. How much money did you say had been expended for homes for them? Mr. COLLETT. About $360,000 has been appropriated to buy land for homeless Indians.

Mr. CARTER. How many Indians have been supplied homes and how much land have you got?

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Meritt probably could answer that more correctly. I would say about 11,000 Indians have received some land from the Government.

Mr. CARTER. Do they live on the homes that have been purchased for them? Mr. COLLETT. In some cases they do and in others they do not, because the lands are so barren and worthless that they will not move to them.

Mr. CARTER. How many of them live on those homes, in your judgment?

Mr. COLLETT. I am not prepared to say that. I think a majority of them do live on the land. Some of the lands are very good lands and some of them are very poor, the poorest that can be had in California.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it a fact that some of them have not a drop of water to irrigate and raise crops?

Mr. COLLETT. It is absolutely a fact.

Mr. CARTER. They have arid lands with no water?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the Indians are benefited much by being supplied these lands for homes?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes; they have been benefited because they have been freed from the fear of eviction, and that has been a great stimulus to individual life and home making, but it has not been the stimulus it might have been and should have been, because they have no title whatsoever and have not the pride of ownership to these lands.

unanimously refused? If you have any light on that question that is what I want to get.

Mr. COLLETT. At the time the treaties were passed by the Senate the records show that there was a great influx of gold seekers in California, men who cared not for God or man. Many of the officials in California at that time were especially known or chosen because of their lack of knowledge of the Ten Commandments. Senator Gwin

was one of the Senators at the time the treaties came up. He went to California in 1849, at the time of the gold rush, and he was hurried back to Washington to protect the interests of the gold seekers. He asked for an executive session; the treaties were disposed of in that executive session, and there is no record of any full hearing having been had.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you think the Secretary of the Interior gets the information which leads him to make the statement I have put in the record?

Mr. COLLETT. It is evident that he does not get it because he says they were "probably" submitted; if they had been submitted, and he had evidence of them, he would not have said "probably."

The CHAIRMAN. He says they were unanimously rejected and that:

"The report of said commission was probably submitted contemporaneoulsy with the 18 treaties, and the Senate not only rejected the treaties but did so by a unanimous vote."

Where did the Secretary get that information?

Mr. COLLETT. He evidently has not any information or he would not say the commission's report was "probably submitted."

The CHAIRMAN. Have you discussed that phase of the question with the Secretary? Mr. COLLETT. No, I have not, but I have personally made a search and had a search made at the Department of the Interior. I have a letter from the Commissioner of the Land Office who has made an exhaustive search; I have looked in the Congressional Globe; I have also examined very carefully the Senate Executive Journal and there is no record of any report from the Private Lands Commission having been before the Senate at that time, but there is evidence of the report of the commissioners who made the treaties; there is evidence of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and from even a local agent out in California. Now then, if these various documents were enumerated in the Executive hearings it is more than reasonable that if there had been a report from some other commission, that would also have been made the subject of note at that time. Now, the report of the commission which made the treaties, the report of the Secretary of the Interior, the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and of the local agent in California, were all strongly in favor of the treaties and it was shown that the lands which the Indians were promised were not in any sense fair compensation for the land they were giving up. Now then, it seems to me that, to-day, we possess a more normal attitude toward life than those gold seekers who rushed out to California, 200,000 or more, in a very short period. They were anxious for gold; they wanted to get rich; they had no other thought in mind, and history shows that Indians in those days were regarded very flippantly; the gold seekers were, in a word, not to be trusted with Indian welfare. To show how the early settlers regarded the Indians, they would go out and shoot them along the Sacramento River as they would shoot a jackrabbit, out of mere sport. The CHAIRMAN. I never heard of that before.

Mr. CARTER. And I never heard of it.

Mr. RAKER. Tell them where you get that information.

Dr. C. HART MERRIAM. It is well known in California as a matter of history.

The CHAIRMAN. I simply observed that it is new to me and my Indian friend, Mr. Carter, says it is new to him.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think that can be proven historically.

Mr. COLLETT. The records are full of these outrages. In the history of Colusa County the report is that Chief Siock died of a broken heart because of the immorality brought in among his people by the whites.

Mr. CARTER. I might say that if such a thing had taken place with the Chickasaws, Cherokees, or Five Civilized Tribes, the white men would have found a two-fisted enemy.

Mr. COLLETT. We find in California that where the Indians, had implements of war and were sufficiently organized to put up a fight, the Government gave them something to keep them quiet. We find all over the United States that Indians who were in a position to fight and did fight got something. but the Indians of California were peaceable and because they were peaceable they have been most shamefully neglected. They are the only Indians in America who have never received one penny of compensation for their rights in land. Certain things have been done for them, but Congress has always regarded the appropriations and efforts on its part as gratuities and never

once has it regarded that it had any legal or moral obligation, although I suppose that in a sense it has considered it a moral obligation, and any serious-minded person looking over the records can not help but recognize that the Federal Government has at least a moral obligation to the Indians of California.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you know about these treaties at the time they were rejected? Is it not a fact that for a period of years the provisions of the treaties were carried out by Congress?

Mr. COLLETT. Not one penny was ever paid according to the record, not as compensation. About $4,000,000 has been appropriated to relieve suffering, but that has been given only because of special activities on the part of the friends of the Indians, and it is evident by the records of Congress that those appropriations, in the main, were given grudgingly and in order to dismiss the subject and get the people away who were asking for those appropriations.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that under Mr. Raker's urgent pleas from time to time certain moneys have been appropriated in behalf of these Indians to build them homes?

Mr. COLLETT. As presents and gratuities.

Mr. RAKER. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. There is something done for them.

Mr. COLLETT. About $4,000,000 altogether. During the last 12 years the records show that the Indians who attend the Riverside School are chiefly from States other than California.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not a fact; and that, of course, is not due to any bar that is put against the Indian children of California going there if they put themselves in shape to do it.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There are other good schools iu California.

Mr. CARTER. A large majority of them are from California and Arizona.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to have the record clear as to what has been done to some extent for the California Indians.

Mr. COLLETT. During the last 12 years appropriations have been made to to the amount of about $360,000. About 61 per cent, according to the best information I can get, has gone into overhead expenses. The average amount, according to the most recent records, that has reached the individual Indian has beem $15.10. The average price paid for the land has been $11.74 per acre. I do not have any reason to believe that there has been any bad faith in the buying of this land, but, at least extremely poor judgment has been applied to the land purchases for those Indians, and the Indians here with us who know the facts will bear me out.

Mr. CARTER. How many Indians in California?

Mr. COLLETT. Twenty thousand.

Mr. CARTER. How much money did you say had been expended for homes for them? Mr. COLLETT. About $360,000 has been appropriated to buy land for homeless Indians.

Mr. CARTER. How many Indians have been supplied homes and how much land have you got?

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Meritt probably could answer that more correctly. I would say about 11,000 Indians have received some land from the Government.

Mr. CARTER. Do they live on the homes that have been purchased for them? Mr. COLLETT. In some cases they do and in others they do not, because the lands are so barren and worthless that they will not move to them.

Mr. CARTER. How many of them live on those homes, in your judgment?

Mr. COLLETT. I am not prepared to say that. I think a majority of them do live on the land. Some of the lands are very good lands and some of them are very poor, the poorest that can be had in California.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it a fact that some of them have not a drop of water to irrigate and raise crops?

Mr. COLLETT. It is absolutely a fact.

Mr. CARTER. They have arid lands with no water?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the Indians are benefited much by being supplied these lands for homes?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes; they have been benefited because they have been freed from the fear of eviction, and that has been a great stimulus to individual life and home making, but it has not been the stimulus it might have been and should have been, because they have no title whatsoever and have not the pride of ownership to these lands.

The CHAIRMAN. You say there has been about $4,000,000 appropriated in all in the interests of these Indians, and, of course, you realize that in this legislation that would be deducted on any claim that was finally allowed?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You sav from your investigation, the net return would be under this claim to the Indians, based on your proposition, $1.25 an acre for the land?

Mr. COLLETT. It would be $1.25 per acre for the land described in the treaties. which gives a total of about $10,000,000, and with the offset of $4.000 000 there would be left about $6,000.000.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you'do with that?

Mr. COLLETT. I believe that that ought to be paid to the Indians, to the individual Indians, divided among them, and in many cases it should be put into permanent improvements with a string on it for a time. The amount that might be found due for orphans and minors, I believe, ought to be available for their benefit under suitable supervision.

The CHAIRMAN. You say there are about 20,000 involved in this claim?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What per cent of the 20.000 would be capable, in your judgment, of receiving this money and handling it on their own account without restriction? Mr. COLLETT. At least three-fourths.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. COLLETT. I want to say with reference to the work of the Indian Board of Cooperation that we have been working in harmony with the State board of health, the State board of charities and corrections, and the State board of education, and in our work with them we have secured from the State authorities many appropriations for school purposes. We have established many schools for Indians. We had the State statute amended a little over a year ago. About two years ago the attorney general of California ruled that Indians living on lands that were held by the Federal Government were not technically residing within the district or any district in California, and hence, since they had no residence there they had no right to the benefits of the district. Last year we were able to get the State legislature to amend the law so now it reads that children between 6 and 21 years of age residing within the district, including Indian children, shall be admitted. So the law is very clear and explicit now. We got through another provision last year, giving to the school authorities the right to use certain moneys for clothes, shoes, and for the benefit of the Indian pupils who were attending the public schools. A great deal has been done to get Indian children into the hospitals, to gain monthly allowances for indigent Indians, to get aid for orphans and half orphans under the age of 14 years. Many thousands of dollars have been released from the Public Treasury for the benefit of the California Indians because of our efforts.

Mr. RAKER. That is from the State?

Mr. COLLETT. From the State. We believe that our request for a day in court is a reasonable one, and the Indians will be satisfied with that day, and if there is found not a cent coming to them they will be satisfied. It is not charity they want. They want justice, and the editorials from the various papers from one end of California to the other are in favor of simple justice, and we do not care how well the interests of the Government are safeguarded; we want them safeguarded. We want the rights of the Indians also safeguarded, and we want a fair opportunity to present this case in the light of sound judgment. I believe that we can get sound judgment upon it, and I do not believe that sound judgment in 1851 and 1852 could have been had in California in that situation. I believe that the records will bear me out in making that statement.

The Indians who have come here have come because they wanted to; they organized first because they chose to, as intelligent men and citizens of California, and, by the way, we got the citizenship question established for them as citizens. As intelligent men, they wanted me to arrange for them to come because never in the history of California has there ever been a delegation here in Washington, and they wanted to put up the money for it. They came. The Indians who have come have been chosen by their own people. I have had no voice in choosing these delegates, and these men are able to speak for themselves. They have not come here without a message to you, and I hope that their message may be delivered, and I know that it will be considered very favorably.

I do not know whether or not there is anything else that I should say on this subject but if there are any questions as to the activities of the Indian Board of Cooperation, as to the reasonableness and the justice of the methods employed, I wish that this committee of Congress, as you may find it advisable, would go into that question and dtermine it for yourselves, because in California we are determined that the Indians,

and the Indian Board of Cooperation, shall do for ourselves what we can, and we find that as soon as we begin to try to do for ourselves, there are certain parties, white persons principally, through jealousy or through some other feeling, are trying to to defeat us and trying to throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into our machinery to hinder us. The only thing we ask of you, Mr. Chairman, and of those concerned with this bill, is that if anything has been presented to you that, confuses or reflects on the justice of the bill, that you go into it carefully.

The CHAIRMAN. Wherein would the interests of the opposition be in this matter? Take up the other side and tell us why the opposition.

Mr. COLLETT. At the last Congress the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, his assistants and the Office of Indian Affairs officials, the House Committee, the Senate Committee, the Senate itself was favorable to the bill, and did their utmost to gain its passage. We are now confronted with the new administration which has adopted another policy. The new administration was in favor of the work being done by the Indian Board of Cooperation until it found it was advocating the passage of a court of claims bill.

The CHAIRMAN. They did not do it until they found that your association was collecting money from the Indians to prosecute the claim.

Mr. COLLETT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think that had an effect upon the change of policy with regard to it?

Mr. COLLETT, No. But that is the statement they have been circulating.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just asking you to give us information with regard to that. Mr. COLLETT. No, it is not a fact, because in September, 1920, I submitted to the department, to the office of Indian Affairs, when we first began to organize, a statement of what we were doing; submitted copies of the by-laws and everything, and asked for a frank criticism, and an acknowledgment was made, which was very kindly and friendly. Then, in December, 1920, we found that the agent in southern California had made some inquiries concerning our work. It seems that he had attended a meeting and was refused admission. I did not know that he was there.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What do you mean by agent?

Mr. COLLETT. Paul G. Hoffman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Indian agent on the reservation.

Mr. COLLETT. He has always been very friendly since, but did not know me at that time. He had found the Indians and me holding an executive meeting, and it was at that meeting he was refused admission. I had nothing to do with it. As soon as I found that such an inquiry was made, I wrote to the Department and asked for a thorough investigation of the work of the Indian Board of Cooperation and as to the methods employed. Every card was put on the table, and then came back the reply from the present Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Charles H. Burke, in which he referred to me and my associates as sincerely working for the benefit of the California Indians.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What was the date of that?

Mr. COLLETT. That letter was dated June 9, 1921.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have any of the Indians ever complained to you or to your society about the money they have paid in or sought to recover?

Mr. COLLETT. No. Not one penny that I know of.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have they ever indirectly registered any complaint with your society against any fees that were paid in to promote this so-called welfare organization?

Mr. COLLETT. I do not know of any complaints of any kind. We find, too, that we have had the cooperation of the office of Indian Affairs in erecting school buildings and gaining school privileges. We have had the cooperation of the department in getting aid for indigent persons. We have been cooperating in the most friendly relationship, which has existed until I took the position and the Indian Board of Cooperation took the position that we believed that anything short of a day in court would be a shameful subterfuge and travesty on justice. We believe that Congress, no matter how kindly it may be disposed to this question, will not be able to satisfactorily dispose of the problem without the aid of the court, and the Court of Claims is qualified particularly to settle the legal and equitable questions.

The CHAIRMAN. When you spoke of your associates in presenting this case, I did not quite get all the information I wanted about your associates. Who are your associates in that?

Mr. COLLETT. Dr. David Starr Jordan, of Stanford University, honorary president: Will C. Wood, state superintendent of public instruction; Dr. George Wharton James, known the Nation over as a student of Indian affairs; and other leading citizens. The CHAIRMAN. Are they directors of your association?