Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs - 1885

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs 1885
LABAN J. MILES. Washington, D. C., January 13, 1885. LABAN J. MILES recalled. By Mr. Bowen: Question. Mr. Miles, is it your understanding that the Osage, Ponca, and Kaw Indians were in possession of their lands at the time the Cherokees executed this deed to the United States for their use?—Answer. Yes, sir. Q. Also, that the consideration paid was charged to funds belonging to these three tribes and turned into the Treasury?—A. Well, I can state with regard to the Osages what I know from the records: the lands the Osage Indians occupy were taken from their funds. I am not sufficiently familiar with the other tribes to answer the question. Q. Did I understand you to say that Mr. Pollock resigned his position before the lease went into effect?—A. Yes, sir. Q. When was the lease made?—A. The lease was made in October, and he resigned three months before the lease went into effect. Q. Is there a difference between the land which leased at 4 cents and the other land, in quality and location, and, if so, state the difference,—A. There is a great deal of difference between the quality and location of the land. The land leased to Mr. Gilbert by the Kaws is upland and good grazing land, and being along the State line, it is the more valuable. One reason is, that food can be obtained there easier than at other points. The Osage Reservation lease is mostly timber-land, while Mr. Gilbert's land will pasture a herd of stock for each 12 or 15 acres; the others cannot pasture near so many—at the rate of 10 acres at the outside. Q. Have these leases been of benefit to the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; they have been of great benefit to the Indians, but I can only explain the matter by referring to what the Indians got before the leases were made. Although they gave permission for stock to graze on their land before these leases went into effect, there was a good deal of difficulty in collecting the tax. On the Kaw Reservation the Kaws collected only $350 a year. The Osage collection, prior to the lease, was between $600 and $700. The Kaws, by leasing half of their reservation and retaining the other half, receive an income of $2,100, and the Wages are getting an income of $12,000 a year, and the land that remains outside of the lease is better protected from intruders by reason of the leases than without them. With the permission of the Secretary, I have enclosed the land with fences, and it is entirely protected, and the Indiana have the balance of the reservation in one pasture, that is, iu reference to the Kaw Indians, and with the Osage Indians it is the same. We have about 9 miles of fence to build and the whole reservation will then be protected from the intrusion of outsiders. Q. Is there sufficient grazing and agricultural land left for the Indians?—A. Yea, sir; much more than they will occupy in the next ten years. Q. I presume they cultivate the bottom-lands principally?—A. Yea, . sir. Q. Were you actuated in your views with reference to making the lease solely by motives which were for the benefit of the Indians?—A. Nothing else whatever, sir. Q. Did you talk at the council in favor of anyparticular application for a lease?—A. No, sir. Q. You have stated that you made a special report to the Department that you had made the lease?—A. Yes, sir. Q. This special report will show your actions and reasons therefor?—A. Yes, sir. Q. I believe you stated that you made a special report because that would be considered more promptly than if made in the general report ? —A. Yes, sir; that is my reason. Special reports are taken up first, and I do not know what is done with the monthly report. Q. Mr. Miles, will you look at this document which I hand you—Senate Ex. Doc. No. 54, Forty-eighth Congress, first session—and state to the committee whether the letter beginning on page 45 and ending on page 46 is one of your special reports on the subject of leases?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Now state to the committee if the communication immediately following this report, on page 64, is the reply you received from the Department?&mdash'A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the date of that report?—A. The date is September 12, 1883. Q. And the communication following this report is the reply you received ?—A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the date of that reply?—A. October?, 1883. Q. Now examine page 99, of the same document, and state whether the letter signed by Secretary Teller is the letter referred to by Mr. Price as the Fenlon letter?—A. Yes, sir; I think that is the letter. Q. You have examined that letter, right here, now, written from the Department?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you understand from that letter that such leases were made with his approval, or that he simply stated that leases made by the Indians with responsible persons would not be interfered with by the Department?—A. I understood the Secretary to state that he could not possibly approve the leases, but that if they were made for a fair compensation and the Indians were satisfied with them they would not be interfered with. Q. Mr. Miles, you think that a fair and reasonable construction to put upon that letter?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Have the Indians under your charge been satisfied with such leases?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Are they still satisfied?—A. Yes, sir; so far as I know. Probably a few have objected. One of the objections was the matter of reporting to the Department by individual Indians who were not satisfied. That was a petition sent to the Department and returned to me for investigation and report. I think my report will be found in the Indian office or perhaps in this document. Q. That is the only opposition that has come to your immediate knowledge?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you think these Indians are receiving a greater benefit under the leases than they did before the leases were made?—A. Yes, sir; they are receiving a great deal more benefit than they received or could receive in any other way. Q. You are very clear about that?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Have the Osages a legal government and officers?—A. Yes, sir; the Osages have laws and a partially legal government. They have a system by which they settle difficulties among themselves. Prior to the time of setting up this government the Indians were clamorous for $10,000 for the purpose of carrying on their councils. I told them that I did not think the Department could grant this request. But I told them that, if they would organize a government, permission, I thought, would be granted to pay the officers of that government. I think they spent the entire winter of 1882 in drafting laws, and in the spring the government was formed with certain officers, and the whole matter went into effect for the next fiscal year. I obtained authority to pay these officers as laborers for the benefit of the tribe. The treasurer of the tribe received enough money from stray stock and fines to pay almost all the prior salaries for the four months before I began to pay them. Since that time they have received money from the grazing of cattle upon their lands, and they have run the government and paid their own officers. Q. You have stated the sources from which they derived their income?—A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the condition of their treasury at the present time?—A. I think they have about $4,000 in the treasury. Q. Now, Mr. Miles, will you make a statement to the committee relative to the method of treating the Indians? We would like to have your opinion on that point. We want to know whether it is better to have the ration system continued, or whether they would become civilized more rapidly, and whether it would teach them business habits and the value and use of money by changing this system.—A. I think in about five minutes I could give my idea of the matter, if the committee will spare that much of their time. Soon after coming there, in 1878, I was thoroughly convinced that the whole ration system was a fraud on the Indian, and a great mistake. It kept them without any idea of self-support and the knowledge of how to provide for themselves. I said to the clerk, who had been there for some time, that this system should be done away with. The Indian ought not to go and draw every week his sugar, flour, and coffee, and do nothing else, and I believe a change could be made. The storehouses were full. I issued the rations the first year. At the end of the second year I said "I do not want to issue rations." The next year he thought I was going to cut them off too soon. I told him I thought I could get them to accede to the matter. I thought I could get along with one-quarter of the rations of sugar, flour, and coffee, and give them a full beef ration. I gradually cut them off, and at the end of the fourth year I issued no rations at all, and in regard to annuities I acted in the same way. I have made in the six and one-half years I have been there only two issues of blankets to these Indians. I also made up my mind in regard to the shops—the blacksmith shop, harness shop, and the carpenter shop—that these shops were not giving them any idea of value at all, and I determined that these shops ought to go. I consulted with the Indians, and they agreed that I was right, and they said they would try it. During this last year all I undertook has been accomplished. In reference to the Indians I have charge of, there is something peculiar. They have money—in fact, they are rich; they have money in the treasury; they have had increased payments; I have increased these payments, because I thought it would be profitable to the Indians. I have allowed the interest money to accumulate. I do not know what to do with it, but I do not think it is a correct thing to pay large amounts to the Indians. But it is their money, and I do not know what to do with it, except to pay it to them. There was one other thing in connection with this matter. There was no power given to compel their children to go to school. I asked authority a year ago to withhold their annuities if their children did not attend school. Some of the officers of the Department thought I was too severe. I went last year before an Indian council and told them I wanted to see that these Indians should attend to sending their children to school; that their annuities should be cut off. I worked before the council three days, and they finally passed a resolution in accordance with my views, which ,was to go into effect last February. From the first payment I cut off the annuities from seventy or eighty, on account of their children not being at school. At the following school term I notified the police in regard to the matter, and I was overrun. I had to shut out children from the agency school. The whole system of a gratuity to an Indian or a white man is a very bad thing—anything that he can receive without understanding the value. By the Chairman : Q. You mean without having to work for it?—A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Bowen: Q. In answer to some questions you were asked yesterday as to the title these Indians have to this land, I understood you to state that the title was in the United States: Did I understand you correctly when I presume that the title is merely in the United States in trust ? The Witness. Will you allow me to explain this matter just for one moment ? Mr. Bowen. Go ahead. The Witness. When I first went there the Indians were clamorous for a patent for their land, claming that they had paid the Cherokees, which I found to be true, for the land. They had been asking for patents for years. Two years ago a bill passed Congress providing that a, patent should issue, which was for the Cherokee Nation, that the Cherokees should patent to the United States in trust for these Indians. The Indians considered the matter, and they said they did not want it. They said they had been guaranteed a patent in fee, and not in trust. I wrote to the Department, and they replied that under existing legislation it was the only patent that could issue. The Osages and Kaws would not be satisfied with anything else than a patent in fee. By the Chairman : Q. They have not taken the patent?—A. No, sir. By Mr. Bowen: ;Q. It was to the United States in trust?—A. Yes, sir. By the Chairman : Q. How about the other Indians?—A. They have consented to patent to the United States. There was only one copy sent to the Osages and the Kaws claimed the same right. Q. This was sent to the Osages for their inspection?—A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Cameron: Q. Do you believe the policy of leasing their unoccupied land is of benefit to the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; I do. Q. Do you think it has, or has not, a tendency to civilize the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; it teaches them the value of money. I think the leasing of their land has had a tendency to teach them the value of money, and also of their land. Q. How have your Indians supported themselves without their annuities?—A. They have supported themselves by farming, have raised Indian corn and some other things, and hunted some also. The Kaws made a failure last year, but the year before they found a ready market for what they produced. Q. What is the date of the last lease?—A. It is dated in November, 1883. Return To Testimony Index.
This site may be freely linked, but not duplicated without consent. All rights reserved. Commercial use of material within this site is prohibited. The copyright (s) on this page must appear on all copied and/or printed material. © 2024 by C.S.L.S.A. Site Coordinator

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs
1885

LABAN J. MILES.

Washington, D. C., January 13, 1885.

LABAN J. MILES recalled.
By Mr. Bowen:

Question. Mr. Miles, is it your understanding that the Osage, Ponca, and Kaw Indians were in possession of their lands at the time the Cherokees executed this deed to the United States for their use?—Answer. Yes, sir.
Q. Also, that the consideration paid was charged to funds belonging to these three tribes and turned into the Treasury?—A. Well, I can state with regard to the Osages what I know from the records: the lands the Osage Indians occupy were taken from their funds. I am not sufficiently familiar with the other tribes to answer the question.
Q. Did I understand you to say that Mr. Pollock resigned his position before the lease went into effect?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the lease made?—A. The lease was made in October, and he resigned three months before the lease went into effect.
Q. Is there a difference between the land which leased at 4 cents and the other land, in quality and location, and, if so, state the difference,—A. There is a great deal of difference between the quality and location of the land. The land leased to Mr. Gilbert by the Kaws is upland and good grazing land, and being along the State line, it is the more valuable. One reason is, that food can be obtained there easier than at other points. The Osage Reservation lease is mostly timber-land, while Mr. Gilbert's land will pasture a herd of stock for each 12 or 15 acres; the others cannot pasture near so many—at the rate of 10 acres at the outside.
Q. Have these leases been of benefit to the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; they have been of great benefit to the Indians, but I can only explain the matter by referring to what the Indians got before the leases were made. Although they gave permission for stock to graze on their land before these leases went into effect, there was a good deal of difficulty in collecting the tax. On the Kaw Reservation the Kaws collected only $350 a year. The Osage collection, prior to the lease, was between $600 and $700. The Kaws, by leasing half of their reservation and retaining the other half, receive an income of $2,100, and the Wages are getting an income of $12,000 a year, and the land that remains outside of the lease is better protected from intruders by reason of the leases than without them. With the permission of the Secretary, I have enclosed the land with fences, and it is entirely protected, and the Indiana have the balance of the reservation in one pasture, that is, iu reference to the Kaw Indians, and with the Osage Indians it is the same. We have about 9 miles of fence to build and the whole reservation will then be protected from the intrusion of outsiders.
Q. Is there sufficient grazing and agricultural land left for the Indians?—A. Yea, sir; much more than they will occupy in the next ten years.
Q. I presume they cultivate the bottom-lands principally?—A. Yea, . sir.
Q. Were you actuated in your views with reference to making the lease solely by motives which were for the benefit of the Indians?—A. Nothing else whatever, sir.
Q. Did you talk at the council in favor of anyparticular application for a lease?—A. No, sir.
Q. You have stated that you made a special report to the Department that you had made the lease?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. This special report will show your actions and reasons therefor?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe you stated that you made a special report because that would be considered more promptly than if made in the general report ? —A. Yes, sir; that is my reason. Special reports are taken up first, and I do not know what is done with the monthly report.
Q. Mr. Miles, will you look at this document which I hand you—Senate Ex. Doc. No. 54, Forty-eighth Congress, first session—and state to the committee whether the letter beginning on page 45 and ending on page 46 is one of your special reports on the subject of leases?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now state to the committee if the communication immediately following this report, on page 64, is the reply you received from the Department?&mdash'A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the date of that report?—A. The date is September 12, 1883.
Q. And the communication following this report is the reply you received ?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the date of that reply?—A. October?, 1883.
Q. Now examine page 99, of the same document, and state whether the letter signed by Secretary Teller is the letter referred to by Mr. Price as the Fenlon letter?—A. Yes, sir; I think that is the letter.
Q. You have examined that letter, right here, now, written from the Department?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you understand from that letter that such leases were made with his approval, or that he simply stated that leases made by the Indians with responsible persons would not be interfered with by the Department?—A. I understood the Secretary to state that he could not possibly approve the leases, but that if they were made for a fair compensation and the Indians were satisfied with them they would not be interfered with.
Q. Mr. Miles, you think that a fair and reasonable construction to put upon that letter?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have the Indians under your charge been satisfied with such leases?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they still satisfied?—A. Yes, sir; so far as I know. Probably a few have objected. One of the objections was the matter of reporting to the Department by individual Indians who were not satisfied. That was a petition sent to the Department and returned to me for investigation and report. I think my report will be found in the Indian office or perhaps in this document.
Q. That is the only opposition that has come to your immediate knowledge?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think these Indians are receiving a greater benefit under the leases than they did before the leases were made?—A. Yes, sir; they are receiving a great deal more benefit than they received or could receive in any other way.
Q. You are very clear about that?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have the Osages a legal government and officers?—A. Yes, sir; the Osages have laws and a partially legal government. They have a system by which they settle difficulties among themselves. Prior to the time of setting up this government the Indians were clamorous for $10,000 for the purpose of carrying on their councils. I told them that I did not think the Department could grant this request. But I told them that, if they would organize a government, permission, I thought, would be granted to pay the officers of that government. I think they spent the entire winter of 1882 in drafting laws, and in the spring the government was formed with certain officers, and the whole matter went into effect for the next fiscal year. I obtained authority to pay these officers as laborers for the benefit of the tribe. The treasurer of the tribe received enough money from stray stock and fines to pay almost all the prior salaries for the four months before I began to pay them. Since that time they have received money from the grazing of cattle upon their lands, and they have run the government and paid their own officers.
Q. You have stated the sources from which they derived their income?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the condition of their treasury at the present time?—A. I think they have about $4,000 in the treasury.
Q. Now, Mr. Miles, will you make a statement to the committee relative to the method of treating the Indians? We would like to have your opinion on that point. We want to know whether it is better to have the ration system continued, or whether they would become civilized more rapidly, and whether it would teach them business habits and the value and use of money by changing this system.—A. I think in about five minutes I could give my idea of the matter, if the committee will spare that much of their time. Soon after coming there, in 1878, I was thoroughly convinced that the whole ration system was a fraud on the Indian, and a great mistake. It kept them without any idea of self-support and the knowledge of how to provide for themselves. I said to the clerk, who had been there for some time, that this system should be done away with. The Indian ought not to go and draw every week his sugar, flour, and coffee, and do nothing else, and I believe a change could be made. The storehouses were full. I issued the rations the first year. At the end of the second year I said "I do not want to issue rations." The next year he thought I was going to cut them off too soon. I told him I thought I could get them to accede to the matter. I thought I could get along with one-quarter of the rations of sugar, flour, and coffee, and give them a full beef ration. I gradually cut them off, and at the end of the fourth year I issued no rations at all, and in regard to annuities I acted in the same way. I have made in the six and one-half years I have been there only two issues of blankets to these Indians. I also made up my mind in regard to the shops—the blacksmith shop, harness shop, and the carpenter shop—that these shops were not giving them any idea of value at all, and I determined that these shops ought to go. I consulted with the Indians, and they agreed that I was right, and they said they would try it. During this last year all I undertook has been accomplished. In reference to the Indians I have charge of, there is something peculiar. They have money—in fact, they are rich; they have money in the treasury; they have had increased payments; I have increased these payments, because I thought it would be profitable to the Indians. I have allowed the interest money to accumulate. I do not know what to do with it, but I do not think it is a correct thing to pay large amounts to the Indians. But it is their money, and I do not know what to do with it, except to pay it to them. There was one other thing in connection with this matter. There was no power given to compel their children to go to school. I asked authority a year ago to withhold their annuities if their children did not attend school. Some of the officers of the Department thought I was too severe. I went last year before an Indian council and told them I wanted to see that these Indians should attend to sending their children to school; that their annuities should be cut off. I worked before the council three days, and they finally passed a resolution in accordance with my views, which ,was to go into effect last February. From the first payment I cut off the annuities from seventy or eighty, on account of their children not being at school. At the following school term I notified the police in regard to the matter, and I was overrun. I had to shut out children from the agency school. The whole system of a gratuity to an Indian or a white man is a very bad thing—anything that he can receive without understanding the value.

By the Chairman :

Q. You mean without having to work for it?—A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Bowen:

Q. In answer to some questions you were asked yesterday as to the title these Indians have to this land, I understood you to state that the title was in the United States: Did I understand you correctly when I presume that the title is merely in the United States in trust ?
The Witness. Will you allow me to explain this matter just for one moment ?
Mr. Bowen. Go ahead.
The Witness. When I first went there the Indians were clamorous for a patent for their land, claming that they had paid the Cherokees, which I found to be true, for the land. They had been asking for patents for years. Two years ago a bill passed Congress providing that a, patent should issue, which was for the Cherokee Nation, that the Cherokees should patent to the United States in trust for these Indians. The Indians considered the matter, and they said they did not want it. They said they had been guaranteed a patent in fee, and not in trust. I wrote to the Department, and they replied that under existing legislation it was the only patent that could issue. The Osages and Kaws would not be satisfied with anything else than a patent in fee.

By the Chairman :

Q. They have not taken the patent?—A. No, sir.

By Mr. Bowen:

;Q. It was to the United States in trust?—A. Yes, sir.

By the Chairman :

Q. How about the other Indians?—A. They have consented to patent to the United States. There was only one copy sent to the Osages and the Kaws claimed the same right.
Q. This was sent to the Osages for their inspection?—A. Yes, sir.

By Mr. Cameron:

Q. Do you believe the policy of leasing their unoccupied land is of benefit to the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. Do you think it has, or has not, a tendency to civilize the Indians?—A. Yes, sir; it teaches them the value of money. I think the leasing of their land has had a tendency to teach them the value of money, and also of their land.
Q. How have your Indians supported themselves without their annuities?—A. They have supported themselves by farming, have raised Indian corn and some other things, and hunted some also. The Kaws made a failure last year, but the year before they found a ready market for what they produced.
Q. What is the date of the last lease?—A. It is dated in November, 1883.

Return To Testimony Index.

This site may be freely linked, but not duplicated without consent.
All rights reserved. Commercial use of material within this site is prohibited.
The copyright (s) on this page must appear on all copied and/or printed material.
© 2024 by C.S.L.S.A. Site Coordinator