Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Will C. Wood is an advisory member.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a director?

Mr. COLLETT. No, sir; not a director.

The CHAIRMAN. Who are the directors?

Mr. COLLETT. J. E. Pemberton.

The CHAIRMAN. Give his name and address.

Mr. COLLETT. Mills Building, San Francisco. He is an attorney at law. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a letterhead upon which the names of your association are printed? If so, I would like to put that in the record.

Mr. RAKER. I have one here.

"INDIAN BOARD OF COOPERATION (INC.).

"Officers: Chancellor David Starr Jordan, honorary president (Leland Standford, jr.. University); J. W. Henderson, attorney, president (Humboldt Bank Building, San Francisco, Calif.); Mrs. Dorcas J. Spencer, first vice president (National Superintend ent Indian Department, W. C. T. U.); Dr. George Wharton James, second vice presi dent (Pasadena, Calif.); Lester Moore, corresponding secretary (Riverside, Calif.): Rev. C. R. Fisher, secretary and assistant treasurer (Room 629 Pacific Building, San Francisco, Calif.); Rev. (Mrs.) Beryl Bishop-Collett, field secretary.

"Depositories: Humboldt Bank, San Francisco, Calif.; First National Bank, Berkeley, Calif.

Executive representative: Rev. Frederick G. Collett.

'Office: 418 Methodist Book Concern Building, No. 3 City Hall Avenue, San Fran- i cisco, Calif.

'Directors: A. C. Jenson (Superintendent County Infirmary, San Leandro, Calif.): Dr. W. H. Carruth (English Department, Stanford University); Dr. Francis Van Horn (First Congregational Church, Oakland, Calif.); Dorcas J. Spencer; Rev. C. R. Fisher (State Secretary, Sunday School Association); Rev. Alex Beers (San Francisco, Calif); J. E. Pemberton, attorney (Mills Building, San Francisco, Calif.); A. C. Stevens; Dr. Raymond C. Brooks (First Congegrational Church, Berkeley, Calif.); J. W. Henderson; E. K. Taylor, attorney (Alameda, Calif.).

66

Advisory committee: Dr. David P. Barrows (president University of California); Dr. R. M. Alden (English Department, Stanford University); Dr. O. L. Elliott (registrar Stanford University); Rev. J. Whitcomb Brougher, D. D. (Temple Baptist Church, Los Angeles); Mrs. G. R. Alden (Pansy) (department editor Christian Endeavor World); Dr. Dana Bartlett (California Housing Commission, Los Angeles); Dr. G. R. Alden; Dr. John Willis Baer; Miss Martha N. Hathaway (245 Cherry Street, Long Beach, Calif.); Will C. Wood (State superintendent of public instruction); Mrs. D. A. Curry (Camp Curry, Calif.).”

Mr. COLLETT. The executive committeemen and members of the board of directors are all responsible men of affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there, in the California law under which you are incorporated, any responsibility to your concern? Could they be sued?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What asset, if any, do you have as an incorporation, outside of the assets of this corporation that could be recovered against in case of suit?

Mr. COLLETT. I think the Indians would not want to recover anything because the funds are not collected from other than voluntary gifts. Dr. Francis J. Van Horn, First Congregational Church, is one of the directors.

The CHAIRMAN. Are any of the other men connected with this association actively engaged in this work, such as you are speaking of?

Mr. COLLETT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they going around the State?
Mr. COLLETT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not personally see any wrong in an Indian being told that he has a claim, if he does not know it himself, and I can not see any particular harm in his helping to defray the expense of getting agitation for what he believes is a just claim. So far as that goes, it seems to me that you are not proceeding without some justification, but if you are soliciting Indians who are incompetent but are able to work and get money for it in the form of wages and are hoping that there is a chance here to cut a melon, as is stated in a certain letter, it seems to me that is going a little bit far. I do not say that you are doing it, but it is reported here that is the fact. I think that every man should have a fair opportunity and a fair run for his money, and I do not see any reason why the Indian who is competent and has money has not the same right to spend it in any way he sees fit to justify what he thinks is a fair claim as anybody else. So, if your organization was not organized for anything except fair

and square methods in the advancement of this claim, I do not see anything wrong in your operations; but if you were organized wholly for the purpose of leading those Indians into a fallacious hope, it would not be a very fair proposition. That is the whole thing that is involved here so far as I see it, and so far as your organization is concerned.

Mr. COLLETT. It is a matter of misrepresentation in all respects. Frank Offield was mentioned as donating a considerable amount, and I stated that he had already paid us $12. He is a man who is able to earn good money. He came down as one of the delegates to the county seat of Humboldt County. While there he lost $90, but he still had enough credit to buy an automobile and went home in the machine. He is one of the men they named as having given when he was very poor and destitute, and a great deal of pity was aroused by that.

The CHAIRMAN. When your association was formed, it was formed with the hope, at least, that you would be able to carry on your activities with subscriptions from white people.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It finally either turned out that subscriptions did not come in freely enough or else it was thought by your association that there was another source of revenue that might be more fruitful. Which of the two?

Mr. COLLETT. Both were considered, and in addition to that we found that it was a benefit for the Indians for them to do for themselves everything that they could do, and we also found that if they were contributing to something they would take an active interest in it would be educationally of value. These people are not organized alone to secure the passage of Court of Claims bill. They are helping to get their children into the public schools of California. They are helping to get them into the hospitals, helping to get orphan aid and other advantages to which they are entitled under the laws of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the State of California have an Indian bureau or an Indian commissioner, or is there legislation which seeks to take care of the Indians to that extent?

Mr. COLLETT. They have no organization whatsoever other than

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). How do you get money from them to do those things you mentioned?

Mr. RAKER. You mean from the State?

The CHAIRMAN. From the State; yes.

Mr. COLLETT. For example, where there is a group of Indians of sufficient number for a new school district without school advantages-and they are not admitted to the white schools-we circulate a petition among them for the formation of a new school district. That petition is presented to the supervisors, and the supervisors consider its merits and they organize the district. Then the State and county automatically release about $1,000 toward the maintenance of the school. The school once established can be continued automatically as the funds are released from year to year, so long as the school is able to maintain an average of five pupils. There have to be 15 children to organize in the first place. So you see the maintenance of a school costs many thousands of dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not quite clear up in my mind a question I asked you as to any new evidence that was not presented at the time the treaties were rejected which caused you to take up this claim, except that you said that at that period the people of the country, not only in California, but the country, were attracted by the gold in California to such an extent that they could not act judiciously upon that matter or fairly at that time.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us any other reason why the treaties were rejected at that time which was unusual?

Mr. COLLETT. Senator Gwynn, the other Senator who was here, and the Californians generally, were looking for gold, and they felt that gold might be found on these particular reservations, and that if they were set apart there would be no opportunity to get the gold, and that is what they went to California for.

The CHAIRMAN. California had two Senators the same as now.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And how many Representatives?

Mr. COLLETT. I do not recall the number of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. There were several of them.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes; but only Senators had the voice in this.
The CHAIRMAN. Their voice was against the treaties.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes; and it is reasonable that it was.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not anything else to justify your starting on this action to bring about this claim except what you have stated?

Mr. COLLETT. Well, perhaps

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Following the answer, may I ask a question on i that very subject?

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Go ahead with your answer first.

Mr. COLLETT. Further justification is this, that the Indians in California are not prosperous. They are in dire need, and some help should be given to them. Gratuity appropriations are not adequate. The demands of those who have presented the necessities to the Congress have not been reasonable or right. For example, 1905 1 there was asked $65,000, and it was understood it would be ample for the Indians in California, but Senator Curtis said, "That is ridiculous", and he raised it to $100,000 through his influence. The following year we found, or two years later, $50,000 was granted, and at that time it was written into the law itself that that $50,000 was ade- | quate, but we find that the total that has been made since is about $360,000. According to the official records there are still 4,000 Indians who are homeless and many of those who have been provided for have been provided for extremely inadequately. This is the point: We feel that gratuities can not, will not satisfy, and that we have a just claim that was not properly disposed of then and that if we can have our day in court now and get judgment as to what is actually and properly due these Indians, then Congress can get at the question of settling with the California Indians in a thorough, businesslike way.

The CHAIRMAN. But do you not see the dilemma Congress has been in ever since those treaties were rejected? Congress, as you have stated yourself, during that period advanced $4,000,000 to these Indians wholly upon the assumption that they were needy, but not with any idea that there was any claim or justification for it except on the basis of gratuity, due to the fact that the treaties had been rejected. That last statement of yours does not seem to be any justification that there is any new evidence presented here that was not presented back in the old days. There was just as much justification then as there is now to help those Indians if they need it, but the question of whether they should be paid for land or not was settled in 1852. Mr. COLLETT. But in a very shameful way.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be; but your two Senators, the Senators from California. were there and present and permitted the thing to go and it seems to me that this is going far afield, to come in here 60 years afterwards and say that because the miners were tinctured with the thought of gold in California that that prompted the mind of the entire Senate of the United States.

Mr. COLLETT. The Senate committee

The CHAIRMAN. I am simply arguing entirely from my own standpoint, and I am trying to find some new reason here, but just the mere fact that some of those Indians are needy does not come into this thing at all.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think my question has a bearing upon it. Is it not a fact that in the last few years not only hundreds but thousands of the best white people in California, who have studied the history of the Indian in California and know what the conditions were back in the days of the gold rush, are now asking the Government to give the Indian a square deal and his day in court?

Mr. COLLETT. They are.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it not really now the voice of the great masses of the best white people of California that the Indian shall be given his day in court?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir; editorials all over the State evidence it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am trying to find, some reason for it. I do not see how you can get away from the facts.

Mr. RAKER. A unanimous vote of the Legislature of California.

The CHAIRMAN. We had a unanimous vote the other day in the assembly of the State of New York for the bonus, but I voted against the bonus notwithstanding it. Mr. RAKER. I will ask this question in that connection: If, as a matter of fact. there were 7,500,000 acres of land in the possession of these Indians in 1852, curtailed by treaty stipulations, that the Indians had for six or seven years, when everything was all right, but in the meantime the Government threw that land open as public lands for settlement, and from that day to this has sold all the lands, in the meantime, is there not then not only an equitable but a just claim on behalf of the Indians as against the Government for the value of the balance of the land, when the Government, in many cases by ejectment suits, threw the Indians off, to return to these Indians at least fair compensation for those lands? The CHAIRMAN. That was not true in 1849.

Mr. RAKER. They held the lands in 1852, and in 1852 in Shasta County until the last five years since I have been here they have been dispossessed from these lands.

I never knew of it until I looked it up-dispossessed from this land which they held from their ancestors for three generations down to the present time, land that was their graveyard and burial places, everything right there.

The CHAIRMAN. I was not arguing the question that there is justification for it. I have said several times I would like something besides a sentimental reason to justify permitting something now that was not permitted, back when the facts were there to be gotten at, and the matter was settled at that time.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Might I say that a study of the history of California and what went on, even here in the Senate of the United States, would be the best answer to that question. That is the history of what actually went on out there and what happened in the Senate would seem to me to be a good answer.

One other question, before this witness goes, bearing upon the question of good faith of this society and as to whether or not it is actuated by mercenary motives, or whether it is actuated by high ideals to do justice to the Indian? Are any attorneys now in touch with this association, or, if not, have they contracts to take these cases into the Court of Claims, if Congress should give permission, been made?

Mr. COLLETT. No one has ever spoken to me. No one has ever discussed the matter of choosing attorneys before the board or at any particular meeting. None of us have given thought to who should be chosen.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have any attorneys ever offered to pay the way of delegates down here and their board while here, arranging to present the claims?

Mr., COLLETT. Certain attorneys here in Washington have given their automobiles and other privileges to the Indians of California and have asked that they may be employed as attorneys in this case.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Have any Washington lawyers offered to pay the expenses of the delegation from California, such as hotel bills, and the fare back home?

Mr. COLLETT. I do not know that they have gone to that extent, but in the Oregon case, just across the border, one man was offered $10,000 if he would swing the case to some attorneys here in Washington. But we have not considered the employment of attorneys and there is no understanding or agreement whatsoever. We want for them the just opportunity to be heard and these people, I am sure, do not want anything else. Mr. RAKER. Be a little more specific in your answer to Mr. Leatherwood. I do not think you covered his question. Is there anybody in California, Government agent or otherwise, in connection with or associated with or seeking association with this organization, who represents the organization, in regard to attorney fees, if the Court of Claims bill should be allowed?

Mr. COLLETT. Not a soul that I know of anywhere, and the members of the board have never received any compensation nor even expense money for any of their work. The CHAIRMAN. You can speak definitely for the other members of your incorporation?

Mr. COLLETT. I am sure I can, even the two attorneys who are on the board of directors; neither one of them has ever solicited any opportunity in the case.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand there are about seven other witnesses, and I think we will adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10.30 and try to finish to-morrow morning as promptly as we can.

(Thereupon, at 12.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Saturday, April 29, 1922.)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, April 29, 1922.

The committee this day met, Hon. Homer P. Snyder (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. RAKER. Yesterday I asked to have the hearing which was held on March 23, 1920, printed as a part of this hearing. I have thought over the matter and find how easily it can be avoided, by letting this stand as it is, which will be volume 1, and let the hearing of yesterday and to-day be entitled "Indian Tribes of California, volume 2." Then anyone who looks into the record can see that there was another volume. If the chairman will have that done there will be no need of having a reprint.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless there is some objection that will be done.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I overlooked yesterday, and I ask that I may furnish to the reporter, and have inserted at this point, the treaty between the United States and old Mexico known as "the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo," which is the foundation of the claim of those who had the possession of lands under the Mexican Government. It is not very long, covering about five or six pages.

Th HAIRMAN. Have you a copy of it?

AKER. I will have a copy submitted to the reporter.

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC RELATIVE TO BOUNDARY LINE, TRANSIT OF PERSONS, ETC., ACROSS THE ISTHMUS OF TEHUANTEPEC.

[Dated at the City of Mexico December 30, 1853.

Ratified by the President of the United States June 29, 1854. Ratifications exchanged at Washington June 30, 1854. Proclaimed June 20, 1854.] By the President of the United States of America.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas a Treaty between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic was concluded and signed at the city of Mexico on the thirtieth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, which Treaty, as amended by the Senate of the United States, and being in the English and Spanish languages, is word for word as follows: