STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT B. WILDER.

Mr. MERITT. Have you ever attended a Government school?

Mr. WILDER. No, sir.

Mr. MERITT. Have you any children who ever attended a Government school? Mr. WILDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MERITT. How many and for how long?

MR. WILDER. I had five. Two of them are now graduated and I still have three at Chemawa.

Mr. MERITT. You had five in the Government schools and they graduated?

Mr. WILDER. Two have graduated.

Mr. MERITT. How long were they in school?

Mr. WILDER. Three years each.

Mr. MERITT. Two at three years each is $600 apiece; and you have three others in school?

Mr. WILDER. Three there now.

Mr. MERITT. How long have they been there now?

Mr. WILDER. Two of them are in their fourth year and one has just begun.

Mr. MERITT. That is $1,600 for the two of them and one is just beginning his education?

Mr. WILDER. Not exactly his education, but just beginning his term there at Chemawa.

Mr. MERITT. How many years will it take?

Mr. WILDER. Well, he is signed up for three years.

Mr. MERITT. Three years? That is $600. Your children have cost the Government $2,800 for education, not counting the one just beginning his term at Chemawa.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALFRED G. C. GILLIS.

Mr. MERITT. Have you ever attended a Government school ?

Mr. GILLIS. Yes, sir; Chemawa.

Mr. MERITT. How long?

Mr. GILLIS. Ten years. I went at 9 and quit at 19; had an 8-year education, skipped the sixth and seventh grades. When we came to study Mexico the teacher said “I don't know anything about those things, the country is unimportant and we will pass that up and go on." But I went back and reviewed those things. Of course, I appreciate the Indian School system but I would prefer the Indians in the public schools.

Mr. MERITT. Have you any children?

Mr. GILLIS. No, sir.

Mr. MERITT. You have cost the Government $2,000 and I think you have demonstrated before this committee that you got a good education.

Mr. GILLIS. One hundred and sixty-five dollars a year at the time I attended. Mr. MERITT. Now, Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen have stated to the committee that this Government has done practically nothing for them. I think you will agree with me after you have heard these statements that they have cost the Government hundreds of dollars and we are very glad indeed to extend this assistance to these Indians. They are worthy of it, but unfortunately Indians do not often give credit to the Government for what it has done for them. When you analyse the situation you will find that the Government is doing something for all the Indians in California, and I called for the statements of these Indians here, to show what the Government is doing for Indians all over the United States. I do not make this statement with the view of criticising these Indians, because they have acted in a splendid manner since they have been here, and I want to commend them for their conduct in connection with this claim.

I do not bring this matter out to embarrass them in any way, but simply to makeMr. ROACH (interposing). Make it clear that the Government has been extending and trying to help them?

Mr. MERITT. To make it clear to the committee that the Government is doing something for these Indians and when you figure out the share that these Indians would have received on their claim, you will find that it would not amount to more than two or three hundred dollars, whereas they have received educational benefits that have amounted to three times the amount of their claim.

Mr. RAKER. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, not now. Let us run along. It is only a controversy.
Mr. RAKER. It is not a controversy. It is just statistics.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us go along. There is a splendid demonstration right there.

Mr. RAKER. I know but the same thing applies to white men.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you got it in.

Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has been very liberal to Indians all over the United States. If you will note the gradual increase of appropriations for Indians in this country. That it will impress it upon your minds, I want the opportunity of placing in the record at this point a statement showing the appropriations for the Indian Service for the last 20 years, by years, which will show a gradual increase of appropriations for the benefits of the Indians of the United States. May I have that privilege?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. If there is no objection it is so ordered.

Mr. ROACH. Have you the total of those appropriations in your mind?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will have them read in a few moments.

(The digest of appropriations, 1922, shows the following amounts appropriated from the Federal Treasury on account of the Indian Service from 1872 to 1921, inclusive, aggregating $399,699,526.10:)

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I think that was a fine statement, Mr. Meritt. Do you take into consideration though in saying that the appropriations have been most liberal, do you take into consideration what the Indian has surrendered, and in view of that do you think that the appropriations and what the Government has done has been most liberal?

Mr. MERITT. I will say that the Government of the United States has been most liberal to the Indians. I believe, in fact I know, that it is popular for people to say that the Indians have not received a square deal from the Government. I will say that the Indians have not received a square deal from the Government in a great many cases. I think the treatment of the Indians of California was not fair so far as the citizens of the State of California were concerned, and I also think that the Federal Government was not fair to those Indians in handling the treaties the way they did. But I do say that there is no other government in the history of the world that has treated a dependent people more liberally than the Government of the United States has treated the Indians of this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, just a statement here. Judge Raker was anxious to get it into the record apparently that what had been done for these Indians was done for white men. Now, my rebuttal of that statement is that I want to say that that is only half true. Of course, the white man is educated, but the white man pays for his education and the Indian's too. That is the only difference between one and the other. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I was especially glad to hear Mr. Meritt make the analysis. I think he made the exact analysis. I do want, though, to bring out the thought that

I think the Government should still continue to attempt to right the wrong which the individuals, collectively, as States or otherwise, have committed.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any question of that.

Mr. MERITT. I think the Government of the United States should continue to be liberal with the Indians.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I do not think you meant what you said in 1920.

Mr. MERITT. I believe if we follow the policy as laid down by Secretary Fall the Indians of California will get very much more benefit than they would get if they should receive at this time a money consideration.

Mr. RAKER. May I ask a question right there?

The CHAIRMAN. Just let us get this statement finished about the appropriations. Mr. MERITT. Now in further comment in regard to the statement of the Indians that the Government has done very little for the Indians of California, I want to call your attention to the last Indian appropriation bill, dated March 3, 1921, under the heading of "California."

"SEC. 3. For support and civilization of Indians in California, including pay of employees, $42,000.

For the purchase of lands for the homeless Indians in California, including improvements thereon, for the use and occupancy of said Indians, $10,000, said funds to be expended under such regulations and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

"For support and education of 750 Indian pupils at the Sherman Institute, Riverside, California, including pay of superintendent, $152,600; for general repairs and improvements, $15,000; in all, $167,600.

"For reclamation and maintenance charge on Yuma allotments, $88,485, to be reimbursed from the sale of surplus lands or from other funds that may be available, in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1911 (Thirty-sixth Statutes at Large, page 1063).

"For support and education of 100 Indian pupils at the Fort Bidwell Indian School, California, including pay of superintendent, $25,000; for general repairs and improvements, $5,000; in all, $30,000.

"For support and education of 100 Indian pupils at the Greenville Indian School, California, including pay of superintendent, $25,000; for general repairs and improvements, $5,000; in all, $30,000.

"For continuing the construction of a road from Hoopa to Weitchpec, on the Hoopa Valley Reservation, in Humboldt County, California, in conformity with plans approved by the Secretary of the Interior, $10,000, to be reimbursed out of any funds of the Indians of said reservation now or hereafter placed to their credit in the Treasury of the United States, in accordance with the Indian Appropriation Act of May 25, 1918 (Fortieth Statutes at Large, pages 570 and 571).

"For the improvement and construction of roads and bridges on the Yuma Indian Reservation in California, $10,000, reimbursable to the United States by the Indians having tribal rights on said reservation.'

Now the total direct appropriations for California Indians carried in this Indian appropriation act that I have read amount to $388,085. That sounds like liberality

to me.

Mr. ROACH. For one year?

Mr. MERITT. For one year. We are also appropriating out of Indian funds in the State of California, Capitan Grande, $1,500; Hoopa Valley, $3,000; Malki, $160; Round Valley, $8,020; Tule River, $1,500; making a total of $14,180 and a grand total of $402,265 appropriated for the benefit of the California Indians.

Now that does not take into consideration the share that they receive in the general appropriations carried in the Indian bill, and I want to bring that point out at this time, Mr. Chairman, as it is very important. I took this hearing of March 23, 1920, home with me night before last, and going over this hearing I made an important discovery. I found that in this total of $4,000,000 that we have included in this hearing that that applied only to the direct appropriations for the Indians of California. The specific appropriations for the Indians of California is included in that statement but it does not include the share that they have received in the general appropriations carried in the Indian bills from year to year, and while they have received practically $4,000,000 in direct appropriations, they have received many millions of dollars in their share of the general appropriations, and for your information I have had analyzed the expenditures of the appropriations for the California Indians for the fiscal year 1921, and we find that we expended for them for the fiscal year 1921 a total of $649,487.96.

Out of that amount there was expended from the direct appropriations for the California Indians $255,851.12; from the general appropriations carried in the Indian

106933-22-PT 2- -10

bill, $289,392.41, and reimbursable appropriations, $104,244.43. Now, you will see the importance of this when I tell you that we have used, out of general appropriations carried in the Indian bill, nearly $40,000 more than is carried in the specific appropriations for the California Indians, and if that same ratio is carried in all the years we will have expended practically the total amount that is claimed by the California Indians at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you expect to show

Mr. MERITT. And we are expending at this time at the rate of $649,487.96 a year. We intend to increase our activities in California so as to meet the actual needs of those Indians, and during the next 10 years we will probably expend for the California Indians, if we get what we hope to get from Congress, $6,000,000, and if this jurisdictional bill should be passed and we should include what we have expended for the California Indians during the past 50 years and what we propose to spend for the California Indians in the next 10 years, the California Indians by their own bill permitting us to set off counterclaims would be indebted to the United States to the extent of several million dollars.

Therefore I think it is clearly for the benefit of the Indians of California that the policy announced by Secretary Fall be pursued rather than that they be permitted to accomplish the things they have asked for here to-day. If what they have asked for here to-day should be agreed to by Congress, namely, that they should receive their pro rata share of this claim of a dollar and a quarter per acre for 7,500,000 acres, which would amount to about $9,000,000 with the set off that the United States can now interpose, they would receive practically nothing; but for this slight chance for a small money payment they are willing to sell their whole future, the education of their children, the protection of their old people, and they are willing to destroy the Indian schools, to destroy the hospitals, to dispose of the use of these doctors and field matrons. The proposition is absurd when you analyze it. Mr. ROACH. They sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. Mr. MERITT. I was going to use that quotation myself.

CALIFORNIA INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS.

The records of the office show the following estimates of the area and value of Indian reservation lands in California, reported as of date of June 30, 1920:

It should be stated in this connection that allotment work is now in progress under the Mission jurisdiction, and a considerable per cent of the unallotted lands there will be allotted within the near future.

Statement showing amounts expended from gratuity appropriations for Indians in California from 1910 to 1921, inclusive.

1 $3,295,168.29 was expended from direct appropriations for the California Indians from 1852 to 1909, inclusive. During the same period expenditures for the benefit of said Indians were also made from general appropriations for the Indian Service at large, but the amount so expended can not be determined without much time and labor, owing to the manner in which the books were kept prior to 1910.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Raker, if you want to ask a question or two, go ahead; but we are not going into any further argument.

Mr. RAKER. I will ask a question. My position is that this Indian bill does not have anything to do with the

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but we have listened to the testimony of these men that have been educated in Government schools. We have listened to Mr. Collett. We have listened to all the witnesses that are here representing the Indians themselves, and they have clearly said in every case approximately what the acting commissioner has just stated, that they desire this bill to become a law.

Mr. RAKER. That does not have anything to do with this proposition. The CHAIRMAN. But they believe that it means that they are going to get a final statement or an adjudication that will pay them so much money and for that they are willing to have the Government withdraw its Indian activities from the State of California. Now, every one of them answered that, and they must have understood it. They have either gotten the wrong information from their instructors, or you have not been closely enough in touch with what has been going on with them, so you may have gotten your lines on the proposition crossed.

Mr. RAKER. No lines crossed with me, Mr. Chairman. I stand right with you. The CHAIRMAN. You think you have taken the sound view of the proposition. There is not any doubt about that, because you certainly could not have recommended to these people that they would do what these witnesses have said they were sent here to do. Now, it clearly shows that there is a misunderstanding and if the Acting Commissioner is correct-I have been over this thing with him and I am certain that if this bill passed to-day by a search back for not more than 10 years, sufficient offset would be found to cover the entire amount that you would recover, based on your $1.25, and therefore you would have nothing, and this struggle would be a struggle in vain. There would not be anything left.

Mr. RAKER. Well, I still insist, and I do not want the chairman to misunderstand me. I insist that this has nothing to do with these gratuities, etc., that he thinks they should have and should be continued.

Mr. ROACH. Oh, yes, Mr. Raker.

The CHAIRMAN. But you do admit that your bill calls for an offset of all that has been spent. Now leaving the other thing out entirely.

Mr. ROACH (interposing). Your bill calls for it and bringing the Indians out of debt any way you could figure it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is clearly a misunderstanding, and if the Government put in the offset that it is permitted to put in under the bill, there would be nothing left for these Indians.