Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

under former agreements are unkept. I am sure it will be the disposition of Congress to consider promptly and in a just and friendly spirit the claims presented by these Indians through our commissioners which have been formulated in a draft of a bill prepared by the Secretary of the Interior and submitted herewith.

On May 14, 1890, a resolution was adopted by the Senate, directing the Secretary of the Interior to examine into the facts alleged by the Pillager Bands in relation to the said treaty and report thereon.

On May 31, 1890, the Secretary of the Interior, having referred the resolution to the Office of Indian Affairs, R. V. Butler, acting commissioner, submitted a report, of five pages (S. Ex. Doc. 137, 51st Cong., 1st sess.), wherein is set forth the facts constituting the history of the claim and showing the attitude of the Indian Bureau thereto.

In the Sixty-fourth Congress, first session, a bill (S. 6016) was introduced for the relief of the Pillager Bands, and providing specifically that their claim, arising under the treaty of August 21, 1847, be referred to the Court of Claims, with right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

On June 26, 1916, Mr. Clapp from the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, submitted a report on the bill (S. 6016) recommending that it, with certain slight amendments set forth in the report, pass.

Incorporated in the report (S. Rept. 545, 64th Cong., 1st sess.) is a letter, dated May 26, 1916, from the Secretary of the Interior to the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, recommending that the bill receive favorable consideration of the Senate Committee.

The bill as amended passed the Senate, was referred to the Committee on Claims of the House, but failed to pass the House.

During the first session of the Sixty-fifth Congress a similar bill was introduced in the House (H. R. 165) and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, but failed to pass either House at the Sixty-fifth Congress.

The next effort was H. R. 6493 in the Seventy-first Congress, first session; but it likewise failed of passage.

The case is simple. Fortunately the facts are of record; the evidence is documentary. No costly accounting is necessary.

It will not be expensive litigation either for the Indians or the Government. For three quarters of a century the Indians have been seeking redress. Now they merely are asking an opportunity to present their cause to the Court of Claims for a determination of their rights.

A letter of the Secretary of the Interior, together with a memorandum from Hon. C. J. Rhoads, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, is appended hereto and made a part of this report.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Washington, May 5, 1930. Hon. LYNN J. FRAZIER, Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs,

United States Senate. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for report on S. 4051, which would authorize the Pillager Bands of Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota to submit their claims to the Court of Claims.

There is inclosed herewith a memorandum by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs setting forth the facts in connection with the claims of these Indians. The matter has been considered by the Bureau of the Budget, and we have been informed that the expenditures contemplated by the proposed legislation would not be in accord with the financial program of the President. Very truly yours,

Ray LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, April 15, 1930. Memorandum for the Secretary.

The accompanying communication of April 2, 1930, from Hon. Lynn J. Frazier, chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, transmits for report a copy of S. 4051, authorizing the Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota to submit their claims against the Government to the Court of Claims.

The claims referred to in the bill relate to the treaty of August 21, 1847 (9 Stat. L. 908), whereby these Indians ceded to the United States a tract of land containing approximately 700,000 acres for a certain consideration recited in the treaty. This claim is what is known as the Long Prairie claim of the Indians mentioned.

Although the treaty does not so state, it appears that the Pillager Band of Chippewas ceded the land recited in the treaty of 1847 to the United States, believing that the Menominee Indians of Wisconsin would be located thereon. It was desired by the Pillagers that the Menominees be placed on the ceded tract in order that a friendly band could be interposed between them and their enemies, the Sioux, whose land adjoined the tract ceded by the treaty of 1847.

By the treaty with the Menominees of October 18, 1848 (9 Stat. L. 952), the lands were assigned to the Menominee for a reservation but they never removed thereto, and by subsequent treaty of May 12, 1854 (10 Stat. L. 1064), they ceded the land to the United States.

The facts in relation to the claims of the Pillagers are printed in Senate Executive Document No. 137, Fifty-first Congress, first session, to which reference is made. Attention is also invited to report of May 26, 1916, contained in Senate Report No. 545, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.

It should be pointed out that the treaty of August 21, 1847, upon which the claim is based, recites that the “cession was complete and the consideration fully agreed upon and paid.”

The record shows that the tract in question contained nearly 700,000 acres and was sold to the Government for about $15,000; that the United States subsequently ceded these lands to the Menominees in exchange for all their lands in the State of Wisconsin; that subsequently the Menominees manifested a great unwillingness to remove west of the Mississippi, and receded the lands in question to the United States in exchange for a part of their old home in Wisconsin and the sum of $242,686.

The Pillagers have never ceased to complain of the transaction and have maintained that they were overreached by the Government.

If the committee should conclude, upon investigation, that there is any merit in the claim of these Indians, it would seem that it would be unnecessary to reser it to the Court of Claims, as the Congress can determine what would be a proper amount to compensate these Indians and to make an appropriation in full settlement thereof.

C. J. Rhoads, Commissioner. O

FLOOD CONTROL ON TRIBUTARIES AND OUTLETS OF

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

May 29, 1930.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the

following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 8479)

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8479) to amend section 7 of Public Act No. 391, Seventieth Congress, approved May 15, 1928, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with the following amendments:

Page 2, line 1, after the word “expenditures", insert the words “heretofore incurred or made".

Page 2, line 3, after the word “destroyed”, strike out the word "by" and insert the words "by the flood of 1927 or subsequent".

Page 2, line 8, after the word “tributaries”, insert the words "or outlets”.

This bill was first introduced by Senator Robinson of Arkansas as S. 271, Seventy-first Congress, first session, April 18, 1929, and the identical measure was introduced in the House on January 11, 1930, as H. R. 8479, Seventy-first Congress, second session. It was amended by the House in some particulars, but the spirit and intention of the original bill were retained, and the measure passed the House on the 23d of May, 1930.

Report No. 1548 of the House Committee on Flood Control on this bill is attached and made a part of this report.

(House Report No. 1548, Seventy-first Congress, second session) The Committee on Flood Control, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 8479) to amend section 7 of Public Act No. 391, Seventieth Congress, approved May 15, 1928, having considered the same, report it to the House with the following amendments with the recommendation that it do pass:

Page 2, line 1, after the word "tributaries”, insert the words “or outlets”.

Page 2, line 11, after the word “stage", strike out the period and insert a colon and the following words:

Provided further, That if the Chief of Engineers finds that it has been or will be necessary or advisable to change the location of any such flood-control work in order to provide the protection contemplated by this section, such change may be approved and/or authorized.”

The purpose of this bill is to liberalize section 7 of the act of May 15, 1928, for flood control on the Mississippi River and its tributaries.

Under the construction given section 7. no provision was made for reimbursing of those on the tributaries above the backwater area, who, in order to protect themselves from further floods, proceeded to rebuild and repair the levees destroyed by the floods of 1927. It developed that this reconstruction and repair work would have come under the provisions of this section had it occurred subsequent to the passage of the act. Therefore, the reimbursement covered under the terms of this bill would apply only to work done between the flood of 1927 and the passage of the flood control act on May 15, 1928. Testimony before the committee disclosed that practically all of this emergency work was done by commissioners of levee districts and others pledging their personal credit or by different levee districts issuing certificates of credit.

Under further construction of section 7 it was found that where levees had been destroyed and it was impracticable to reconstruct them on the original right of way, the Army engineers were without power to relocate these levees. It was certainly not the intention of Congress to compel the engineers to reconstruct a levee upon a right of way which would be immediately destroyed.

Under the construction given this section, the engineers were unable to protect any levee constructed under authority of section 7 by the Government from the perils of caving banks.

Therefore, this bill proposes to reimburse those parties who from dire necessity were compelled to provide flood works before the Government authorized the expenditure for this purpose. In many instances it was disclosed by the testimony, this emergency work saved the Government money due to the fact that the floods against which this protection was given would have made greater inroads and made the task of the Government more difficult and expensive.

The engineers should have authority to relocate these levees in order to have them serve the most practical and useful purposes. The committee adopted an amendment providing that a relocation can be made only by authority of the Chief of Engineers, and with his approval. The engineers should have the authority also to protect any of those works for which the Government, under this section, stands responsible from the dangers of the caving banks.

Under the construction given section 7, outlets from the Mississippi River were not included, and the committee has therefore adopted an amendment which will include them. This will apply to emergency work on the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana.

Five million dollars were authorized under section 7 of the flood control act, of which amount only $1,033,543 have been spent.

In compliance with paragraph 2a of Rule XIII, the following shows the insertion made in the law by the bill:

Sec. 7. That the sum of $5,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated as an emergency fund to be allotted by the Secretary of War on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in rescue work or in the repair or maintenance of any flood-control work on any tributaries of the Mississippi River threatened or destroyed by flood, including the flood of 1927: Provided, That the unexpended and unallotted balance of said sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, may be allotted by the Secretary of War on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in the reimbursement of levee districts or others for expenditures for the construction, repair, or maintenance of any flood-control work on any tributaries or outlets of the Mississippi River that may be threatened, impaired, or destroyed by flood or that have been impaired, damaged, or destroyed by flood; and also in the construction, repair, or maintenance, and in the reimbursement of levee districts or others for the construction, repair, or maintenance of any flood-control work on any of the tributaries of the Mississippi River that have been impaired, damaged, or destroyed by caving banks or that may be threatened or impaired by caving banks of such tributaries, whether or not such caving has taken place during a flood stage: Prorided further, That if the Chief of Engineers finds that it has been or will be necessary or advisable to change the location of any such flood-control work in order to provide the protection contemplated by this section, such change may be approved and/or authorized

O

}

SENATE

71st CONGRESS

20 Session

{

REPORT No. 749

CONFERRING AUTHORITY TO FIX THE SIZE OF FARM

UNITS ON DESERT-LAND ENTRIES

May 29, 1930.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. Thomas of Idaho, from the Committee on Irrigation and Recla

mation, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 1186)

The Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1186) to amend section 5 of the act of June 27, 1906, conferring authority upon the Secretary of the Interior to fix the size of farm units on desert-land entries when included within national reclamation projects, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass without amendment.

The facts are fully set forth in House Report 947, Seventy-first Congress, second session, which is attached hereto and made à part

of this report.

(House Report No. 947, Seventy-first Congress, second session) The Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to whom was rereferred the bill (H. R. 1186) to amend section 5 of the act of June 27, 1906, conferring authority upon the Secretary of the Interior to fix the size of farm units on desert-land entries when included within national reclamation projects, because of an inadvertence in not incorporating in the report the statute it is proposed to amend, report the bill favorably, and in compliance with the rules of the House of Representatives, section 731A, there is herewith presented the proviso sought to be amended in section 5 of the act of June 27, 1906, chapter 3359, Thirty-fourth Statutes, page 520, with the words stricken out printed in black brackets, and the parts inserted being indicated by italics:

Provided, That if after investigation the irrigation project has been or may be abandoned by the Government, time for compliance with the desert land law hy any such entryman shall begin to run from the date of notice of such abandonment of the project and the restoration to the public domain of the lands withindrawn in connection therewith, and credit shall be allowed for all expenditures and improvements [heretofore] theretofore made on any such desert-land entry of which proof has been or may be filed; but if the reclamation project is carried to completion so as to make available a water supply for the land embraced in any such desert-land entry, the entryman shall thereupon comply with all

« ÎnapoiContinuați »