the claim of the California Indians, and can not see my way clear to approve any bill that has for its purpose compensating the Indians upon the basis of the value of the lands involved in the 18 treaties rejected by the Senate in 1852. In the hearings and reports, the amount that would be involved, without taking into consideration the question of interest, would be about $10,000,000.”

The CHAIRMAN. Now those are the two paragraphs that were left out in the statement that Helen Dare gave out to the public. It seems to me that those two paragraphs are particularly important when you come to consider what follows as a matter of information to the public and the press of California.

Mr. MERITT. The Secretary's memorandum continues:

"The treaties submitted in 1852 were considered by the Senate when that body had full information, not only from the commissioners who negotiated the treaties but another commission that was appointed by the President for the express purpose of making an investigation and a report on the condition of the California Indians and the report of said commission was probably submitted contemporaneously with the 18 treaties and the Senate not only rejected the treaties but did so be a unanimous

vote.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I don't want to interrupt, but I would like to know upon what facts that paragraph is based. I don't want to interrupt.

The CHAIRMAN. It is pointed out there unoubtedly in the report of June 17, where the records of the Senate is written in in a paragraph.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, is there any means of getting these reports?

The CHAIRMAN. So far as I know, I take if for granted that this statement from the report of the Secretary of the Interior was from authentic information somewhere. Mr. RAKER. Well, let us ask Mr. Meritt if they have those reports that were submitted to the Senate.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now this other thought comes to me. Assuming now that to be historically correct, assuming that that is all true

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). As shown by the Executive Journal of the Senate for June 28, 1852, on page 417.

Mr LEATHERWOOD. I say now, assuming that that is all true, Mr. Chairman, and I do. Assuming that the record bears out the statement, this paragraph cites as a reason why these things should or should not be done. Should we not also take into consideration the time, the political conditions, and the reasons which probably actuated the Senate at that time in rejecting the treaty and giving that just as much weight now in attempting to do justice as to take the bald facts, one sided, and assume that everything was correct?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, we have that before us and can consider that when we come to the consideration of the bill itself.

Mr. RAKER. I do not want to interrupt.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like Mr. Meritt to have a little opportunity to get his argument going in sequence.

Mr. RAKER. Will you pardon one question?

The CHAIRMAN. Sure, if Mr. Meritt is willing.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Meritt, the two reports referred to now and the Secretary's letter that is supposed to have been submitted to the Senate are those obtainable so that they can be printed in this hearing?

Mr. MERITT. I would not like to answer that question offhand without looking up the record. The Secretary's memorandum continues as follows:

"It is my policy that, where Indians are without any tribal property and are in indigent circumstances, the Government should extend to them liberal aid in providing for their care and comfort and in aiding them in having the advantages of education and civilization to the end that they may not only become self-supporting but that they may become useful of citizens of the country, with homes in which to live. The proposition as contained in the jurisdictional bills contemplates the ascertainment of a lump sum in the nature of compensation to be divided pro rata among the descendants of the 210,000 Indians said to have been in California in 1852, without any regard as to whether such persons are in need of assistance and without any regard as to their qualifications to wisely use the money that they might receive. My suggestion would be for a definite roll of the California Indians to be made, through this department, that would show the blood status of each Indian and his or her condition, to determine their actual needs, with a view to legislation that would have for its purpose extending to such Indians as are in need such necessary relief as would be for their best interests and advancement, including homes for those having families.

"If I am convinced that more liberal appropriations should be made for the California Indians than have been made heretofore and bills should be introduced in the Congress having in view the relief that I have indicated, such bills will unhesitatingly have my recommendation, but I will.not indorse bills providing compensation as is contemplated by the pending measures. "ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary.

“FEBRUARY 27, 1922.”

Mr. ROACH. Right there. different bands and tribes?

Has there never been any enrollment made of the

Mr. MERITT. We have a census of the California Indians and there are rolls of the Indians living on Indian reservations, but we have no regular roll of Indians living off the reservation in California.

Mr. ROACH. The Secretary suggested that such a roll be made?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROACH. I think that is a splendid suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. I might suggest that we let the commissioner proceed for 10 or 15 minutes anyhow until he gets a reasonable argument before us.

Mr. ROACH. Pardon me for interrupting him, but I was so impressed with the suggestion about the enrollment that I wanted to mention it.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, I believe every member of the committee will agree with me that Secretary Fall has made a very liberal proposition here so far as the California Indians are concerned, and after it is carefully considered and analyzed it will result in very much more good to the Indians of California than the proposition which has been indorsed by all the Indians who have spoken here to-dav, namely, to receive their pro rata share of this fund from the Government and then the Government discontinue its activities in the State of California.

In my statement before this committee on March 23, 1920, I went somewhat into detail in regard to this California situation and my testimony will be found beginning with page 66. I put considerable detailed information in that statement. The first table shows the Indian population of California from 1905 to 1919, inclusive. In 1905 there were 15,519 Indians in California, and in the year 1919 there were 16,215 Indians in California, which shows that for a period of the last 16 years, at least, there has been an increse of nearly one thousand Indians in the State of California. That shows the benefit of the supervision that has been given these Indians. Health conditions and home conditions are gradually improving. Also on page 70 you will find a table showing the blood status of the Indians in California as well as the population. In California we find that there are 16,215 Indians. There are 10,640 adults and 5,575 minors. The full-bloods number 11,172. You will see from these figures that a very large percentage of the Indians in California are full-bloods. Out of a total population of 16,215 there are 11,172 who are full-blood Indians.

On page 72 of that hearing you will find a table showing the amount of land that has been purchased for those California Indians. We have expended about $200,000 in the purchase of lands. We have bought approximately 9,000 acres of land for those Indians. We have supplied lands for nearly 5,000 Indians, and there remain about 2,000 Indians who need to be supplied with lands.

Now, some comment has been made here in regard to the quality of land which we gave those Indians. We concede that the highest grade of land in California was not purchased for those Indians because we did not have the appropriations available. We had to beg Congress for these appropriations in order to get money to buy lands for these Indians and we had one of the most interested men in California, so far as Indians are concerned, to supervise the purchase of this land. His name is C. E. Kelsey, a representative of the Northern California In lian Association, and he purchased most of the land that was bought for those Indians by the Government. The title to the land has not been turned over to the Indians because we wanted to reserve that land for a home for the Indians indefinitely. If we had bought land and turned it over to the Indians and given them title they would soon have disposed of their land and we would have additional homeless Indians on our hands. So we bought the lands in the neighborhood where the Indians were living; not with the idea of providing them with all the land that they could possibly use but with the idea of buying them land in the neighborhoods where they lived so that they could have a home and then go out on the ranches and farms and earn a living. That was the idea of buying these lands for the Indians.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, if it would not interrupt you, Mr. Meritt, you have touched a matter that has arisen in my mind a number of times. That is a question that Congress in this case, as I understand you, failed to give you sufficient means

to provide the kind of homes that otherwise would have been bought? Is that the the thought you intended to convey?

Mr. MERITT. I not only intended to convey that thought, but I intended to convey the thought also that it would be impracticable to ask Congress to appropriate money to buy developed lands at a thousand dollars an acre, such as you can buy in California, because we knew in advance that Congress would not give us money for that purpose.

Second, we thought it was best for the Indians to buy land for them in the community where they then lived so that they could continue their activity of making a living in the immediate community where they were living. Anyone who knows Indians will realize that it is almost impossible to get the Indians to move voluntarily from the old home districts.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it reasonable to expect that an Indian or anybody else would be able to subsist and be self-supporting upon allotments of land that are practically barren and without the possibilities of water?

Mr. MERITT. These Indians have been living in that community for a great many years. We bought that land for them so that they would have a home, so that they could not be pushed off or out of the community as they have done in the past. We did not buy that land with a view of providing farms for the Indians but for homes so that they could live in safety in the community where they had been living for years and so that they could go out among the ranches and farms and earn their living. It is a well known fact that Indians in California can get work at $3 and $4 a day a large part of the year, working on the fruit farms and ranches in California. I have traveled over a good part of the State of California and I have seen Indians there earning $4 a day by manual labor out in the orchards and citrus groves, and there is no trouble at all about Indians getting employment in California.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a fact, is it not, that in appropriating this money it was appropriated to buy homes for the Indians; not farms?"

Mr. MERITT. That is the idea. And I would be doing

Mr. ROACH (interposing). So they could not be driven out of the community. The CHAIRMAN. The commissioner has stated exactly what the understanding was. Each time the records will show when we appropriated the money for these Indians in California that it was to purchase homes that they could live in and work from, not farms.

Mr. MERITT. You would be doing the Indians of California a distinct injustice to take away from them the necessity of earning their own living. What we tried to do was to secure for them a home and give them the opportunity to earn their living by their own efforts.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I quite agree with that position and I do not think the assistant commissioner, if he is answering me upon the theory that I am criticizing, has interpreted my remarks correctly.

Mr. MERITT. I am simply stating the policy of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Several times in the testimony we have talked about buying this land with rocks and rills, etc., on it, assuming that it was supposed the land was to be fertile. to be operated as a farm.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The thought that did come to me if I may I will state it now, because I think it has some relation to this matter. I have given this question a little study, the question of the history of the treatment of the Indians, and in nearly every case where I have taken an individual tribe or band and traced the history for the last 50 years, he has been going from the desirable to the less desirable, constantly being pushed from the desirable to the less desirable by the white man's legislation, and I am frank to say that I have the feeling that in many cases in California the Indian has gone from the desirable to the less desirable. Now, I think for one thing, so far as my Government is able to it should right the wrong, if there has been wrong along that line.

Mr. MERITT. You will find in my statement in the hearings of March 23, 1920, on page 75, a table showing the Government schools in California. Indians do not always appreciate what the government is doing for them. You will notice from the hearing to-day that the Indians from California-and these are representative Indians of that country-do not seem to realize the extent of the educational opportunities that were being furnished the Indians of California. They only referred to two or three schools. If you will refer to page 75 of the hearings of March 23, 1920, you will note the number of Indian schools in California. For instance, under the Bishop Schools we had the Bishop day school with a capacity of 60; Big Pine School with a capacity of 30; the Independence day school with a capacity of 30; and the Pine Creek day school with a capacity of 30; at the Campo day school a capacity of 30. At the Fort Bidwell School, we have a boarding school where we

"If I am convinced that more liberal appropriations should be made for the California Indians than have been made heretofore and bills should be introduced in the Congress having in view the relief that I have indicated, such bills will unhesitatingly have my recommendation, but I will.not indorse bills providing compensation as is contemplated by the pending measures. "ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary.

"FEBRUARY 27, 1922."

Mr. ROACH. Right there. different bands and tribes?

Has there never been any enrollment made of the

Mr. MERITT. We have a census of the California Indians and there are rolls of the Indians living on Indian reservations, but we have no regular roll of Indians living off the reservation in California.

Mr. ROACH. The Secretary suggested that such a roll be made?

Mr. MERITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROACH. I think that is a splendid suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. I might suggest that we let the commissioner proceed for 10 or 15 minutes anyhow until he gets a reasonable argument before us.

Mr. ROACH. Pardon me for interrupting him, but I was so impressed with the suggestion about the enrollment that I wanted to mention it.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, I believe every member of the committee will agree with me that Secretary Fall has made a very liberal proposition here so far as the California Indians are concerned, and after it is carefully considered and analyzed it will result in very much more good to the Indians of California than the proposition which has been indorsed by all the Indians who have spoken here to-day, namely, to receive their pro rata share of this fund from the Government and then the Government discontinue its activities in the State of California.

In my statement before this committee on March 23, 1920, I went somewhat into detail in regard to this California situation and my testimony will be found beginning with page 66. I put considerable detailed information in that statement. The first table shows the Indian population of California from 1905 to 1919, inclusive. In 1905 there were 15,519 Indians in California, and in the year 1919 there were 16,215 Indians in California, which shows that for a period of the last 16 years, at least, there has been an increse of nearly one thousand Indians in the State of California. That shows the benefit of the supervision that has been given these Indians. Health conditions and home conditions are gradually improving. Also on page 70 you will find a table showing the blood status of the Indians in California as well as the population. In California we find that there are 16,215 Indians. There are 10,640 adults and 5,575 minors. The full-bloods number 11,172. You will see from these figures that a very large percentage of the Indians in California are full-bloods. Out of a total population of 16,215 there are 11,172 who are full-blood Indians.

On page 72 of that hearing you will find a table showing the amount of land that has been purchased for those California Indians. We have expended about $200,000 in the purchase of lands. We have bought approximately 9,000 acres of land for those Indians. We have supplied lands for nearly 5,000 Indians, and there remain about 2,000 Indians who need to be supplied with lands.

Now, some comment has been made here in regard to the quality of land which we gave those Indians. We concede that the highest grade of land in California was not purchased for those Indians because we did not have the appropriations available. We had to beg Congress for these appropriations in order to get money to buy lands for these Indians and we had one of the most interested men in California, so far as Indians are concerned, to supervise the purchase of this land. His name is C. E. Kelsey, a representative of the Northern California Indian Association, and he purchased most of the land that was bought for those Indians by the Government. The title to the land has not been turned over to the Indians because we wanted to reserve that land for a home for the Indians indefinitely. If we had bought land and turned it over to the Indians and given them title they would soon have disposed of their land and we would have additional homeless Indians on our hands. So we bought the lands in the neighborhood where the Indians were living; not with the idea of providing them with all the land that they could possibly use but with the idea of buying them land in the neighborhoods where they lived so that they could have a home and then go out on the ranches and farms and earn a living. That was the idea of buying these lands for the Indians.

Meritt, you have
That is a question

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Now, if it would not interrupt you, Mr. touched a matter that has arisen in my mind a number of times. that Congress in this case, as I understand you, failed to give you sufficient means

to provide the kind of homes that otherwise would have been bought? Is that the the thought you intended to convey?

Mr. MERITT. I not only intended to convey that thought, but I intended to convey the thought also that it would be impracticable to ask Congress to appropriate money to buy developed lands at a thousand dollars an acre, such as you can buy in California, because we knew in advance that Congress would not give us money for that purpose.

Second, we thought it was best for the Indians to buy land for them in the community where they then lived so that they could continue their activity of making a living in the immediate community where they were living. Anyone who knows Indians will realize that it is almost impossible to get the Indians to move voluntarily from the old home districts.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it reasonable to expect that an Indian or anybody else would be able to subsist and be self-supporting upon allotments of land that are practically barren and without the possibilities of water?

Mr. MERITT. These Indians have been living in that community for a great many years. We bought that land for them so that they would have a home, so that they could not be pushed off or out of the community as they have done in the past. We did not buy that land with a view of providing farms for the Indians but for homes so that they could live in safety in the community where they had been living for years and so that they could go out among the ranches and farms and earn their living. It is a well known fact that Indians in California can get work at $3 and $4 a day a large part of the year, working on the fruit farms and ranches in California. I have traveled over a good part of the State of California and I have seen Indians there earning $4 a day by manual labor out in the orchards and citrus groves, and there is no trouble at all about Indians getting employment in California.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a fact, is it not, that in appropriating this money it was appropriated to buy homes for the Indians; not farms?

Mr. MERITT. That is the idea. And I would be doing

Mr. ROACH (interposing). So they could not be driven out of the community. The CHAIRMAN. The commissioner has stated exactly what the understanding was. Each time the records will show when we appropriated the money for these Indians in California that it was to purchase homes that they could live in and work from, not farms.

Mr. MERITT. You would be doing the Indians of California a distinct injustice to take away from them the necessity of earning their own living. What we tried to do was to secure for them a home and give them the opportunity to earn their living by their own efforts.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I quite agree with that position and I do not think the assistant commissioner, if he is answering me upon the theory that I am criticizing, has interpreted my remarks correctly.

Mr. MERITT. I am simply stating the policy of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Several times in the testimony we have talked about buying this land with rocks and rills, etc., on it, assuming that it was supposed the land was to be fertile, to be operated as a farm.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The thought that did come to me—if I may I will state it now, because I think it has some relation to this matter. I have given this question a little study, the question of the history of the treatment of the Indians, and in nearly every case where I have taken an individual tribe or band and traced the history for the last 50 years, he has been going from the desirable to the less desirable, constantly being pushed from the desirable to the less desirable by the white man's legislation, and I am frank to say that I have the teeling that in many cases in California the Indian has gone from the desirable to the less desirable. Now, I think for one thing, so far as my Government is able to it should right the wrong, if there has been wrong along that line.

Mr. MERITT. You will find in my statement in the hearings of March 23, 1920, on page 75, a table showing the Government schools in California. Indians do not always appreciate what the government is doing for them. You will notice from the hearing to-day that the Indians from California--and these are representative Indians of that country-do not seem to realize the extent of the educational opportunities that were being furnished the Indians of California. They only referred to two or three schools. If you will refer to page 75 of the hearings of March 23, 1920, you will note the number of Indian schools in California. For instance, under the Bishop Schools we had the Bishop day school with a capacity of 60; Big Pine School with a capacity of 30; the Independence day school with a capacity of 30; and the Pine Creek day school with a capacity of 30; at the Campo day school a capacity of 30. At the Fort Bidwell School, we have a boarding school where we