[No. 61—Second Series—3000] 
 
 Indian Rights Association, 
 
 1305 Arch Street, 
 Philadelphia, Pa., May 12, 1902. 
 
 The Action of the Interior Department in Forcing 
 the Standing Rock Indians to Lease Their 
 Lands to Cattle Syndicates. 
 
 About the first of the year the Indian Rights Association learned of the 
 intention of the Interior Department to lease to cattle syndicates nearly 
 two-thirds of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, in North and South 
 Dakota, for grazing purposes. The evidence herewith submitted from well- 
 informed and entirely trustworthy sources shows that such action was con¬ 
 trary to the wishes of these Indians. It will be, in our opinion, detrimental 
 to their best interests. It was also contended that the terms of the proposed 
 leases were in violation of an explicit agreement made with these Indians by 
 representatives of the Indian Office. The advertisement proposing to lease 
 the lands was dated December 23, 1901, and it announced that bids would 
 be received up to January 10, 1902. This fact alone was enough to excite 
 suspicion, since prospective lessees were only allowed seventeen days in which 
 to file bids. How extensively this intention of the Department was adver¬ 
 tised we are unable to say. 
 
 For years the Government has endeavored to induce the Indians to be¬ 
 come self-supporting, and has encouraged them in various ways to take an 
 active interest in farming and stock-raising; and in furtherance of this plan 
 the rations issued were reduced to the lowest limit advisable. The Indians 
 recognized the necessity of increased effort in these directions, and many of 
 them settled on the desirable tracts along the streams. The present leases 
 are, as a matter of fact, a complete reversal of the Government’s policy. It 
 is distinctly a backward step and its effect must of necessity be pernicious. 
 To surround them now with cattle will unquestionably discourage the Indians 
 and lessen the opportunities heretofore held out to them. It is a well-known 
 saying wherever such leases obtain, that the Indians’ cows never have calves, 
 whereas the white man’s always have twins. The meaning is obvious. Such 
 a backward step will almost inevitably lead to a dwindling away of the small 
 herds of the Indians and soon force them to depend altogether on the Gov¬ 
 ernment for support. 
 
2 
 
 no • U t 
 
 While it is true the Commissioner held a nominal agreement with the re¬ 
 quisite number of signatures attached, authorizing the lease, he ignored the 
 most important provision—namely, the oral understanding, which expressly 
 stipulated that the Indians were to designate the tracts of land to be leased. 
 As the Indians selected no lands, in accordance with this oral agreement it 
 would seem that the action of the Department was illegal. Moreover, the 
 agreement referred to was virtually forced on the Indians by a threat of the 
 Department to inaugurate the “permit system” if they refused to yield to 
 the pressure that was put upon them. 
 
 In view of the protests received from Indians and others familiar with 
 local conditions, the Association, on January 9, 1902, addressed the following 
 letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Hon. E. A. Hitchcock: 
 
 “The Indian Rights Association has just learned that on the 10th instant 
 bids are to be received for the lease of far the largest part of the lands on the 
 Standing Rock Agency, in North and South Dakota, of the Sioux nation. 
 We respectfully and most earnestly ask you to order that all proceedings in 
 the matter shall cease for the present, for the following reasons: 
 
 “ 1. There are strong doubts whether such a lease, under existing condi¬ 
 tions, is not a violation of the treaty obligations of the United States to these 
 Indians. 
 
 “2. We are informed that certain members of the tribe desire individual 
 allotments out of these lands. Unless such tracts are exempt from the lease, 
 —and there seems to have been no notice that such exemption would be made, 
 —the lease will violate the provisions of the General Allotment Law. See 
 Act amending it, approved February 28, 1891. 
 
 “3. A number of these Indians have established themselves on individual 
 holdings and are cultivating small farms on the borders of the land proposed 
 to be leased as a cattle range. If this is done these farms will be overrun and 
 destroyed by the cattle on the range, for the farms are unfenced, the Indians 
 cannot fence them, and there is no obligation on the lessees to fence their 
 cattle range. So the homes of a number of Indians, who have tried, with 
 some success, to become self-supporting, will be broken up, and they will be 
 driven back, to become mere paupers supported by the United States. 
 
 “A reasonable delay can prejudice no one, and will allow time to procure 
 fuller information. We believe that if such delay be granted, we can produce 
 evidence that will fully sustain our allegations, and that a great wrong and 
 injury to these Indians will be averted. 
 
 “ Respectfully, 
 
 “Philip C. Garrett, 
 
 “ President of the Indian Rights Association. 
 
 “ P. S. The number of Indian families established on the land which it is 
 proposed to lease is 613.” 
 
 The only direct reply received to this communication was a note from 
 the Secretary, stating that it had been referred to the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs. The Secretary, however, evidently felt called on to defend 
 his action, and an apparently authoritative statement concerning his views 
 on the matter appeared in the Washington “Star,” of January 14th, as fol¬ 
 lows: 
 
 “ Secretary Hitchcock laid before the President and the Cabinet the action 
 of the Department of the Interior in leasing about one million acres of surplus 
 grazing lands belonging to the Sioux Indians of the Standing Rock Reserva¬ 
 tion, in the Dakotas, and the objections that have been raised to this course 
 by the Indian Rights Association, the Indian Citizenship Association, Mis¬ 
 sionary Boards, and others. Secretary Hitchcock explains the lease of the 
 lands, saying that for years these lands had been overrun with cattle brought 
 
 HAR 1 0 2000 
 
in by ‘ squaw ’ men and others for grazing, and that the Indian tribe has not 
 received a penny of benefit from this. It was decided by Commissioner 
 Jones and the Interior Department to set aside the surplus lands and lease 
 them to competent cattle men at so much a year. 
 
 “The bids for the lands were opened the other day, and as a result the In¬ 
 dians will receive each year hereafter from $35,000 to $40,000 that they never 
 knew they were entitled to before. The cattlemen are bonded to properly 
 carry out the lease. Among the objections raised are those that scattered all 
 over the land to be leased are the homes of many Indian families, who are 
 trying to become self-supporting, and that their places would be overrun by 
 the cattle of the lessees; that certain members of the tribe desire individual 
 allotments of the land; that an Indian Mission will be included in the lands 
 to be leased. 
 
 “Secretary Hitchcock stated to the CabineCthat the Indians are not op¬ 
 posed to leasing which is authorized by law; that a large majority of the 
 tribe are in favor of it and have signed the tribal authority to this effect; that 
 it is not in conflict with treaty provisions; that the ranges will not be over¬ 
 stocked; that only about fifty families resided in the proposed leased dis¬ 
 trict, whose rights will be fully protected; that it will not denude the reser¬ 
 vation of timber for the lessees to secure posts for fencing; that all farms, 
 gardens, and individual holdings of the Indians will be fully protected; that 
 the mission near Bullhead sub-station is to be excluded from the leased 
 district; that the proposed district will be fenced so as to prevent trespass- 
 mg. 
 
 On learning of the determination of the Indian Office to accept the bids 
 of two parties, a delegation of the Standing Rock Indians, consisting of Stand¬ 
 ing Soldier, Wah-koo-te-ma-nie (alias Shoots Walking), Mad Bear, Thunder 
 Hawk, Rushing Eagle, Red Tomahawk, and Louis Primeau (interpreter)— 
 the most representative and progressive men of the tribe—went to Washing¬ 
 ton in the hope of either preventing the leases from being effected or having 
 them so modified as to make their provisions less objectionable. The delega¬ 
 tion was not received with the utmost cordiality by the Interior Department 
 officials, but was ignored, rebuffed, and treated with scant consideration by 
 those who were ostensibly their “guardians.” The remark of an Inspector 
 of the Department to the Agent of the Association, to the effect that ‘‘it did 
 not make any difference what the Indians wanted, they must make those 
 leases,” exhibited a remarkable contempt of anything like justice, and pre¬ 
 sumably reflected the sentiment of his superiors, and a determination to gain 
 the desired end regardless of ways or means. 
 
 While in Washington the Indians prepared a statement setting forth their 
 understanding of the matter and their reasons for opposing the leases. This 
 was signed by the entire delegation and presented to the President and 
 Secretary of the Interior. It reads : 
 
 “The members of the Sioux bands of Indians residing within the Stand¬ 
 ing Rock Reservation, in North and South Dakota, represented by their 
 chosen delegates, respectfully address this petition to you. It has been repre¬ 
 sented that a majority of our people have agreed to lease all our unoccupied 
 lands without designating the boundaries thereof, and that such agreement 
 in writing is now held by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 “We hereby deny that such alleged authority has been given by us, and 
 there is full and abundant evidence to prove this assertion. The Indian 
 Office had long been urging us to lease our lands for grazing, and, our tribe not 
 consenting, the Honorable Commissioner of Indain Affairs directed that the 
 ‘permit system’ of grazing be fully inaugurated by the first of the present 
 month, and this was without our consent also, and we were not consulted in 
 the matter at all. 
 
4 
 
 “Fearing that the ‘ permit system ’ would be worse for us than the regular 
 mode of leasing, we then concluded to agree to the latter plan. A council 
 was called, and the whole subject talked over with our Government agent. 
 We desired a full and definite agreement drawn up in writing, showing just 
 the lands we would consent to lease, but at the suggestion of the agent we 
 signed a short form of agreement, giving general authority to lease our unoc¬ 
 cupied lands. This was done, with the full understanding with the agent at 
 the time that we should be allowed to select the lands that might be decided 
 upon to lease under the agreement. This was, and is, as much a part of the 
 agreement as the written portion thereof, under which the Indian Office 
 claims authority and is threatening to lease certain portions of our lands. 
 At the time this alleged agreement was signed it was fully understood and 
 , agreed between the Government agent and our tribe that we should select 
 three of our number, who, together with the agent, should go over the lands 
 we might thereafter agree to lease, and mark the boundaries thereof. In pur¬ 
 suance of this well-understood agreement, we selected three of our tribe for 
 this purpose, and these persons were awaiting notice from our Government 
 agent to begin such work of designating the lands to be leased, when we were 
 informed that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs had advertised for bids, 
 proposing to lease two-thirds of our reservation. To any such proposition 
 we are opposed, and have not consented thereto. 
 
 “The Government has been for years impressing upon us the need of our 
 making efforts at farming and grazing, and we have settled along the streams 
 and endeavored to do the best we could against great odds in a country where 
 there is so little rainfall. We feel that if our lands can be monopolized by the 
 cattlemen without our consent, that we can have no assurance for future 
 protection. We believe that if the Government paid us what is rightfully 
 due at this time, we would have sufficient funds to invest in cattle, so that 
 all our surplus lands would be utilized and our young men be employed in 
 caring for the same. 
 
 “ Realizing that there are strenuous efforts being made to secure our lands, 
 we consent to lease a tract twenty-five miles in width off the west side of our 
 reserve. We feel, also, that there will be no difficulty in agreeing to lease 
 additional lands if those we have selected can go over the lands of the reserva¬ 
 tion and mark off the selected portions thereof. 
 
 “We appeal to you to see that justice is accorded us in this matter.” 
 
 Through the efforts of this Association and others who objected to seeing 
 a helpless people thwarted in an attempt to secure just recognition, a resolu¬ 
 tion offered by Senators Rawlins and Jones was adopted, by which the Indian 
 Committee of the Senate was empowered to thoroughly investigate the ques¬ 
 tion of the leases. A hearing was granted the Indians by the Senate Com¬ 
 mittee, and the testimony given more than corroborated all that had been 
 said by those who opposed the leases and who had objected to the question¬ 
 able methods which marked the action of the Indian Office in the transaction. 
 The Commissioner of Indian Affairs opposed the delegation appearing before 
 the Committee, and the Indians stated that, had it not been for the support 
 given them by this Association, they would have abandoned any further 
 effort in the matter and returned disheartened to the reservation. 
 
 The Senate Committee was impressed with the Indians’ clear, straight¬ 
 forward presentation of their case, and agreed with their contention—namely, 
 that they should designate which lands were to be leased, according to the 
 original agreement. Notwithstanding this, however, and that the matter 
 was still under investigation, the Indian Commissioner proceeded to execute 
 the Lemmon lease. As a last resort, the Indians took their case into court. 
 Notice was served on Secretary Hitchcock and Commissioner Jones to show 
 cause why an injunction should not be granted against executing the Stand¬ 
 ing Rock leases, and also to show cause why a permanent injunction should 
 not be granted. The Indians’ side was argued by able counsel, but the Court 
 
5 
 
 of Appeals of the District of Columbia decided against them. An appeal may 
 yet be taken to the United States Supreme Court. 
 
 The Association, wishing further light on this matter, secured the services 
 of Rev. T. L. Riggs, the well-known missionary of the Congregational Church, 
 who has been working for years among the Sioux Indians, and who speaks 
 Dacotah fluently, to make a personal investigation and to report existing 
 conditions on the reservation, the sentiment of the Indians, and how the oper¬ 
 ation of the leases would affect their interests. The report of Mr. Riggs shows 
 that there is really no surplus land that ought to be leased; that the Indians 
 have made good progress in stock-raising, and that the reservation is in 
 reality only sufficient for their own needs, allowing for a natural increase of" 
 their herds. We present the report herewith: 
 
 “REPORT ON STANDING ROCK LEASING OF RESERVATION. 
 
 “In giving the results of my recent investigation of the proposition to 
 lease the lands of Standing Rock Indian Reservation for grazing purposes, I 
 will first make brief outline of the history of the case as obtained from the 
 Indians. 
 
 “History. 
 
 “ The first public move was a council held early in May, 1901, at Standing 
 Rock. At this time the party appearing to ask lease privileges was the Chi¬ 
 cago and Milwaukee Railway Co., represented by their Agent, Mr. Hunter. 
 The Department did not then assume to press the matter [standing], rather 
 leaving the case to the decision by the Indians themselves. The proposition 
 was made in somewhat indefinite form, asking that the Indians authorize a 
 lease of reservation land represented as a tract in the western portion of the 
 same, but understood by the Indians as including all that part of the reserva¬ 
 tion south of Grand River. This they rejected, there being no vote in favor 
 wdien asked to accept. 
 
 “Again, in the latter part of May, there was a council held. Again the 
 Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway Co. appeared in the person of Mr. 
 Hunter, asking to lease “certain portions” of the reservation and other 
 privileges. This proposition was strongly urged by Agent Bingenheimer, 
 and had further the indorsement by telegram of the Indian Office at Wash¬ 
 ington. This second offer was rejected, there being no vote asked or taken, 
 because of the almost unanimous expression of opposition to it. 
 
 “Late in October the Indian Office offered a proposition for leasing reser¬ 
 vation lands by the Department,—the proposed lessees not appearing,— 
 which was favorably considered. This proposition, as presented to the 
 Indians and as accepted by them, was that a tract of land thirty miles square, 
 or its equivalent, 25 townships, in the northwest corner of the reservation, 
 should be leased. The Indians accepted this, subject to two conditions; that 
 is, that this tract be located on unoccupied lands, so as not to conflict with 
 the rights of Indians, and that this tract be first definitely marked out by a 
 committee of three Indians, chosen by themselves, and the Agent. These 
 two conditions were an essential part of the agreement, and separate from 
 these there was no agreement made. On this question there is absolutely no 
 variation in testimony given. It would appear, however, that in the written 
 form submitted for the Indians to sign, these essential conditions were left out, 
 and, whereas the Indians supposed this to be the identical agreement they 
 had made in council, it covered only the bare fact of their consent to the leas¬ 
 ing of lands. 
 
 “A further interesting bit of history is the fact that previous to this Octo¬ 
 ber agreement a party of cattlemen, railroad men (Chicago, Milwaukee, and 
 St. Paul), and local representatives of the Indian service went out over a part 
 of the reservation and, it is said, came to an understanding among them¬ 
 selves, portioning off all of the western two-thirds of the reservation in strips 
 of twelve and six miles wide, on lines running north and south; these strips 
 to be fenced on such lines regardless of the Indian occupants. This was 
 
6 
 
 prior to the present proposition to lease, and presumably a proposed modifi¬ 
 cation of the permit system or $1.00 a head order of the Department. 
 
 “ Limits of Leases. 
 
 ‘ ‘ If one trusts to the record of the hearing of this case before the Senate 
 Committee, there seems to be no definite understanding on the part of the 
 Honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Agent Bingenheimer, or the pro¬ 
 posed lessees, of just where the lines are to run. The statement ‘ I do not 
 know’ appears far too often. The call for proposals issued by the Indian 
 Office under date of December 23, 1901, offers to bidders a tract covered by 
 'a distance of about fifty-six miles,’ the entire width of the reservation 
 eastward, and from the western boundary of the reservation ‘to the range 
 line between ranges twenty-six and twenty-seven ’ in South Dakota and 1 the 
 range line between ranges eighty-one and eighty-two in North Dakota.’ It 
 may be here remarked that in South Dakota the Government surveys are 
 made for that part lying west of the Missouri River from the Black Hills 
 Meridian; ranges running eastward instead of to the westward as for locali¬ 
 ties east of the river. In North Dakota the survey continues the system 
 uniformly of ranges running to the westward. I ascertained from the survey 
 stakes that the range line between ranges twenty-six and twenty-seven 
 crosses Grand River in a general direction of nearly at right angles at a point 
 about two and one-half miles west of the Grand River Government Boarding 
 School. This fact surely should not have escaped the knowledge of Agent 
 Bingenheimer. 
 
 “Under the modified form, and according to the leases known as the 
 Lemmon and the Walker leases, the eastern limit of land proposed to be 
 leased is moved one row of townships, six miles, to the westward of the origi¬ 
 nal proposal, including all west of ‘the range between ranges twenty-five and 
 twenty-six,’ and from there ‘due north,’ through the lands surveyed under 
 the eastern meridian. This places the line eight and one-half miles west of 
 the Grand River School as its point of crossing Grand River, or some two 
 miles westward of the mouth of Little Oak Creek, which comes into the Grand 
 on the south with a long westerly slant from the southwest. All this is a sim¬ 
 ple matter of running out the lines of the regular Government survey. Just 
 where this line extends through North Dakota and down into the valley of 
 the Cannon Ball I was not able to take time to ascertain. It presumably 
 lies a little to the eastward of the sub-agency on the Upper Cannon Ball. It 
 certainly lies from six to eight miles to the eastward of the sub-agency on 
 Grand River, known as Bull Head Station. I did not ran the lines up to 
 Bull Head, and as Grand River is very crooked, I cannot give the exact dis¬ 
 tance. The sub-agency lies, however, a little to the north of due west from 
 Grand River School, and the distance between the two places is sixteen miles. 
 This would bring the lease limits six or more miles east of Bull Head, without 
 any doubt. 
 
 “Number of Families. 
 
 “There appears to be fully as dense ignorance, on the part of those whose 
 business it is to know, regarding the number of Indians who will be affected 
 by this leasing of land, as in the matter of land limits. Agent Bingenheimer 
 tells the Senate Committee that eighty families might possibly be included. 
 He certainly knew better, or ought to have known better. Under the origi¬ 
 nal calls for proposals to include lands lying west of the range line between 
 ranges twenty-six and twenty-seven, etc., there could not possibly be less 
 than four hundred families within the proposed lines. I do not know that 
 any one has taken the trouble to make careful census. It included nearly 
 every man, woman, and child on the rolls of Bull Head, a few short of one 
 thousand persons. It also included the great majority of those enrolled on 
 the Upper Cannon Ball Station,—the exact number of whom I was not able 
 to learn,—besides scattering families belonging elsewhere. These facts are 
 a matter of record and can easily be ascertained. 
 
 “Under the final proposition to lease lands extending only to the range 
 line between ranges twenty-five and twenty-six, there are on Grand River 
 from Bull Head Station to the western limits of the reservation, one hundred 
 and seventeen (117) separate families, enrolled at Bull Head under one 
 
7 
 
 hundred and twenty-two (122) separate tickets. Below Bull Head, and to 
 be included within lease limits, are seventy (70) separate families, recorded 
 under seventy-eight (78) separate tickets, or one hundred and eighty-seven 
 (187) families, and classed under two hundred (200) tickets. These tickets 
 are for convenience in making issue of rations. On the Cannon Ball I have 
 not so accurate information, but there are counted thirty-two (32) families, 
 all of whom will come within the limits of leased lands, a total of two hun¬ 
 dred and thirty-two (232) families according to agency ticket record. I did 
 not have time to secure the names of the heads of families, but this is imma¬ 
 terial. Nor was I able to obtain the information needed to say just how many 
 families there are on lands included in the Lemmon lease and the Walker 
 lease separately. To do this would require more time than I had at my 
 disposal. 
 
 “ In view of the fact that Agent Bingenheimer told the Senate Committee 
 that Bull Head Station was not to be included in the lease—a full township 
 to be cut out—and that this tract is very thickly settled, I was interested to 
 learn just how many occupied that immediate neighborhood, for it has ap¬ 
 parently always been the policy to discourage settlement too close to the sub¬ 
 agencies. Within a radius of four miles, taking Bull Head as a center and 
 making a circle eight miles in diameter, so as to include all possible comers 
 of a tract six miles square, I find but thirteen families; and of these, two 
 families occupy temporarily, that their children may attend school. 
 
 “Land Needed by the Indians. 
 
 “ How much land the Indians need for present and future grazing of their 
 own stock is a question that should have an answer. The movement for 
 leasing Indian lands appears to have reason in it on the assumption that there 
 are vast regions not now occupied, and the Indian Office views with acute 
 pain this great loss. I am reminded in this by an expression of a young 
 stockman who, with comprehensive wave of the arm over the wide prairies, 
 announced: ‘Yes, you bet, you are losing $10,000 a day, Mr. X., by not 
 having cattle to eat up this grass. ’ So the Indian Office laments the loss of 
 many dollars a day—to the stockmen—by their not being able to turn reser¬ 
 vation grass into Porterhouse steak. Now, it is well known that the wild 
 grasses of this range do not recuperate quickly. No sane man expects to be 
 able to cut next year over the same ground that this year had given a crop of 
 upland hay. The year following, possibly, but probably not before the year 
 after that, he may reasonably expect to run his mower over the land again. 
 This means that it requires four years to produce a crop of upland hay. 
 Bottom lands do better than this as a matter of course, but the land in ques¬ 
 tion is almost entirely of upland character. The same is true in grazing; 
 land fed off closely one year will not give equally good feed the next. Many 
 stockmen agree upon twenty-five to thirty acres of grazing land as necessary 
 for the support of one steer; and this besides hay land. Others claim that 
 year in and year out fifty acres of grazing of all sorts is none too much for one 
 animal. This conservative estimate is probably not far from correct. 
 
 “Now, the Indians of Standing Rock Agency own between thirteen and 
 fourteen thousand head of cattle; there are very few families where a small 
 bunch of cattle is not owned, and I believe there is but one man who has over 
 two hundred head. Their holdings of cattle are small, but remarkably well 
 distributed. Probably, also, they own about as many horses, or a few more 
 horses than cattle. This would give then twenty-six to thirty thousand head 
 of stock, demanding, at fifty acres for each animal, 1,500,000 acres for present 
 needs. 
 
 “ It would be the poorest kind of foresight that did not allow for increase. 
 One hundred per cent, increase would call for 3,000,000 acres. And it will 
 require at least four hundred per cent, increase on present holdings to make 
 these Standing Rock Indians self-supporting as stock-raisers, calling for the 
 round figures of 5,000,000 acres—more, probably, than the entire reservation 
 contains. And yet the Lemmon lease calls for nearly 800,000 acres, and 
 nearly 500,000 acres will be handed over under the Walker lease. 
 
 “But to take the Grand River region, which includes all of the 460,800 
 acres that were to be leased to Mr. Walker. The Indians of Grand River 
 owned, in 1901, 5247 cattle. Almost all of these are within the limits of this 
 
8 
 
 Walker lease. Probably with their horses they now own 11,000 head of 
 stock. It would not appear that there is much land here that is suffering to 
 be leased. The Indian delegate who said to the Senate -Committee, in oppo¬ 
 sition to the lease project, ‘we want that for ourselves,’ evidently knew 
 what he was talking about. 
 
 “In concluding this portion of my report I wish to say that though my 
 investigation, so far as made, was careful and complete, I am very well aware 
 that I have not covered the entire ground. There are other closely related 
 questions—the water-supply of the region, the timber growth and the lignite 
 coal beds—that properly should be studied carefully in order to give a full 
 and comprehensive statement. This I have not had time to do. Indeed, a 
 man might profitably spend several months in looking up these matters be¬ 
 fore being able to cover all I would or could do in this my report which is now 
 respectfully submitted. “Very truly, 
 
 “T. L. Riggs. 
 
 “Oahe, S. D., March 17 , ipo2.” 
 
 We have received the proceedings of a council of the Indians, held at Rock 
 Creek, Standing Rock Reservation, at which the Indians unanimously op¬ 
 posed the leasing of their lands, and desired the Agent to send their protest to 
 the Commissioner at once. The facts developed at this conference are ex¬ 
 ceedingly significant. If the leases were made out before the Indians agreed 
 to the proposition in any manner, the matter can only be explained in one of 
 two ways: The Commissioner of Indian Affairs was either guilty of great 
 blundering, or was not actuated by right motives in the transaction. The 
 account of this council is attested by Miss Mary C. Collins, a Missionary of the 
 Congregational Church at Standing Rock, who has labored long and success¬ 
 fully among these people. Although not verbatim, it gives a full summary 
 of what took place. It is as follows: 
 
 “ Sioux Indians in Council at Bull Head Station, Standing Rock Agency, 
 April 12, 1902. 
 
 “A council called by the Chiefs to protest against Mr. Lemmon building 
 his fence while his lease case is still in the courts. 
 
 “The farmer, Mr. Spooner, sent for the Agent. There was much excite¬ 
 ment among the Indians. The Indians sent for Miss Collins with urgent 
 request that she be there on time to be a witness as to what was done. The 
 Agent reached Bull Head a few minutes before Miss Collins. 
 
 “When Miss Collins arrived, groups of men with hard-set teeth and ear¬ 
 nest eyes were standing about watching anxiously the hill to see if the Mission¬ 
 ary was coming; she was given a cordial greeting. 
 
 “The meeting convened between two and three o’clock p.m., and the 
 council room was packed—all men with one purpose. One who understands 
 men would know it was not a time for trifling. These Indians were here to 
 assert their rights as men. The Agent opened the meeting (not having a 
 fluent interpreter, he labored under some difficulty). 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘I have come here at your request to hear what 
 you have to say. I am told that you do not want Lemmon to go on building 
 his fence. You ask who gave me authority to permit it. I received this 
 (showing telegram) telegram, dated March 2 2d, from Commissioner Jones, 
 telling me to allow Lemmon to proceed with his fence. I have nothing to do 
 with it. I can only obey orders. 
 
 “ ‘ I hope that you understand that your rations were cut down last year 
 fifty per cent. They will be cut again the first of July fifty per cent. I am 
 allowed to pay this year four thousand dollars for labor—about one dollar 
 per capita. I shall pay one dollar and twenty-five cents a day. I have 
 asked the Government to use a part of your money to buy cattle for you. 
 I have asked for seventy-five bulls and three thousand six hundred two-year- 
 old heifers—one for each person. You have not enough to eat. What are 
 you going to do? See these old people. They will starve if they do not 
 have a full ration. You cannot live on the rations the Government will give 
 you. You will have to work. You cannot find much work to do. This 
 
9 
 
 Lemmon lease will pay seven dollars a year per capita. If I tell the Depart¬ 
 ment that you do not have enough to eat, they will say you had land to spare 
 and would not lease it, and so I shall not be able to do anything for you. You 
 ought to lease it to get this seven dollars a year—you will need it. Your 
 rations are only half now what they were a year ago, and in July will be cut 
 in two again. How can you live?’ 
 
 “Grey Eagle: ‘Are we to have the annual per capita payment of our 
 interest money?’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘Yes, this year. I have tried to get the hide 
 money and your three dollars per capita payment this year; I think you will 
 get it. The Department has decided that it is not best to pay you your 
 interest in money. They will spend it for you.’ 
 
 “Thunder Hawk: ‘Last spring we had two councils. You asked us to 
 lend our land to the Railroad. We did not wish to lease. We thought we 
 had a right to refuse. The Commissioner frightened us by threatening to 
 turn cattle loose upon us. Then in the fall you called a third meeting. We 
 were helpless. We wanted to do the best we could to protect ourselves, so 
 we agreed to lease thirty miles square on the northwest comer of the reserva¬ 
 tion, where there were no houses. This council chose three men—Louis 
 Primeau, Antoine De Rockbrain, and myself—to go with you and designate 
 the lines. You said that you would meet us here at Bull Head Station and 
 that you would go with us. We waited, but you did not come. We thought 
 that when we had laid out the lines that we should have an open council; 
 that you and Lemmon would meet us and read the contract to us, and that 
 we would then together come to an agreement like men.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘You are right, and I fully intended to do as you 
 say. But right now, before all these people, let me say had it been left for 
 me I should have done just as I promised. But it was not left to you nor 
 to me. Before I had submitted a report of that council to the Department, 
 I was told that the Commissioner had made out the leases and they were 
 printed. I could do nothing. Those lines were run in Washington. Your 
 council had nothing to do with it. I did not send them until the leases had 
 been made out and the boundaries settled. I had nothing to do with it; and 
 further, right now, I want you to understand that I cannot say or do any¬ 
 thing except as my superiors in the Department tell me. If I could, I would 
 do as you wish; but I can do or say nothing contrary to their wishes. I 
 cannot change a line; I can do nothing. All that I can do is to obey their 
 orders. The reason that I did not go out with you to lay out the lines is. 
 because it was taken out of my hands by the Commissioner. I could not 
 keep my promise to you. If any of those who will be fenced inside the pas¬ 
 ture wish to move out, I will ask the Government for lumber to build them 
 houses outside. I will permit them to move.’ 
 
 “Weasel Bear: ‘The promise was that we lease only unoccupied land; 
 that no man’s homestead should be disturbed; that the leases should run 
 so as not to interfere with the men who have built substantial homes. We' 
 do not know where the lines run, how much land you have given Lemmon.. 
 But we do know that at least thirty-five of the Bull Head families are surely 
 in the pasture, who went there to settle on land that they intended to take 
 as allotments. These men do not want to abandon their homes. We forbid: 
 Lemmon to build a fence that will inclose these homes. The delegates who> 
 went to Washington put our case into the hands of lawyers. As we now un¬ 
 derstand, there has been no report made to us by these lawyers stating that 
 we had lost our case. We were told to await the decision of the white man’s, 
 court. If we can wait patiently for your courts, why should the Commis¬ 
 sioner, who is holding such a high office under the President, be permitted 
 to ignore your courts and order Lemmon to build the corral around the 
 fence? And this is what we wish you to tell the Commissioner. We have 
 no two plans: only one have we submitted and we stand by that. Take 
 your Committee and gladly will we go with you and lay out the boundaries 
 and make a contract with Lemmon. We bind ourselves to no other con¬ 
 tract.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘How are you going to live? Your rations are 
 now so small that they do not half feed you. You need every dollar that 
 you can get. After July ist they will be still less. You will have to work. 
 Where will you get work? I say that I am not doing this. I cannot forbid. 
 
10 
 
 Lemmon to build the fence. I can only tell the Commissioner what you 
 say.’ 
 
 “Weasel Bear: ‘ It is not money nor rations that we are considering. We 
 are standing by our rights as men. This is our land and we are the ones 
 to decide what parts we shall lease, or whether we shall lease anything.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘You are not leasing this land for nothing. You 
 get big pay. Seven dollars per capita yearly. You need this money. You 
 have not enough to eat now. Look at your old people. They will starve 
 on less than full rations.’ 
 
 “One Bull: ‘If I am stronger than Weasel Bear and I go to him and say, 
 “You have a good farm; I want it; you must let me have it,” Weasel Bear 
 says, “No. I settled on this farm to make a home for myself and my chil¬ 
 dren. I have gathered property about me and I am settled for good. In a 
 few years I can support my family comfortably.” I insist. I say, “That 
 has nothing to do with the case. I do not want your place for nothing, 
 I will pay you for it.” Now, because I am stronger than Weasel Bear, though 
 I will pay him well, would it be just or right or manly for me to drive him 
 off and take his home? I say No. It is wrong. He does not want my 
 pay. He wants his home because it is his, and it is his right to refuse to sell 
 or lend. We want to be treated like men—not driven like dogs. For twenty 
 years we have tried to learn the white man’s ways. We came to the courts 
 in Washington. We left our case there. We thought the courts would rule 
 wisely and justly. As the courts had taken our case, we thought we were 
 recognized as men, but now the Commissioner shows us that the white man’s 
 court is no better than his word, and while our case is in court not yet settled, 
 he orders Lemmon to go ahead and corral us. We are not brutes. We 
 will not submit. Tell Lemmon to stop building the fence. Respect our 
 manhood and we shall obey the laws. We will lease the part that we selected. 
 The land is ours. We will lease the northwest comer and will go with you 
 to make the boundaries, and in open council hear his offer and draw up the 
 contract together. We forbid Lemmon to go on with the fence.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: 1 If any one who will be inside the fence wishes to 
 move out I will let him and will try to get lumber for houses for you.' 
 
 ‘ ‘ Rosebud: ‘ Where will the money come from with which you will buy 
 the lumber ? ’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘ It is a special gift from the United States appro¬ 
 priated each year by Congress. It is called subsistence and civilization 
 funds. It is not Indian money. It may be that it is from the sale of lands 
 prior; but if it is, it was a long time ago. It is a free gift.’ 
 
 “Wakutemani: ‘No one wants to abandon his home. Wait until we 
 get word from our lawyers that we have been defeated in the courts. We 
 are not defeated. The Commissioner has no right to tell Lemmon to go 
 ahead. Trust the courts. We want you to forbid Lemmon to proceed 
 until the case is decided against us. We have made no new contract. We 
 stand by the one talked of in October, thirty miles square on the northwest 
 corner of the reservation, and they to pay not less than a dollar a head for 
 the cattle. We protest, and we want you to tell the Commissioner to 
 stop Lemmon until the courts decide whether we have the rights of men or 
 not.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘I will write at once to the Commissioner, but I 
 am afraid I can do nothing. You may sell fence posts to Lemmon at six 
 and one quarter cents apiece, and you may haul the wire which is now at 
 Evarts, and will soon be at Fort Yates. You can earn a great deal of money 
 that way, and you people not having enough to eat ought to be glad to earn 
 so much money.’ 
 
 “One Bull: ‘We are Indians and cannot live without wood and water. 
 In winter we cannot live upon the high planes and keep our herds. We 
 have to live along the streams where there are ravines, and brush and shel¬ 
 tered spots, and wood and water. This lease will deprive a great many people 
 of their sheltered homes. Streams and wood are scarce. We will not lease 
 the best of our land. We will never consent to have our brothers corraled 
 like cattle. We are men like you. Take the committee and go out with 
 them and decide where Lemmon shall build his fence; we will agree to that.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘You understand it that way, but I did not un¬ 
 derstand it so. Still I say that if the Commissioner had let me I would 
 
11 
 
 have carried out your plans. But I did not know that you were to mark 
 the boundaries.’ 
 
 “Rosebud: ‘If you did not understand that the Committee who were 
 selected to go with you were chosen by us to mark the boundaries, why did 
 you arrange to meet them and promise to go with them, and why did you 
 say you would have gone if the Commissioner had let you ? ’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘I say I would have carried out your wishes as 
 nearly as I could, and I would have let you decide the boundaries, but I did 
 not understand that you expected to do so.’ 
 
 “Wakutemani: ‘We have met here to show a plain talk with the Agent. 
 He now understands what we want. We wish him to write at once or tele¬ 
 graph to the Commissioner that we forbid Lemmon to go on with the fence 
 until the case is decided in the courts. We ought to close this meeting by 
 a rising vote on this protest.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘All willing for Lemmon to go on, arise.’ 
 
 “ (Not one arose.) 
 
 “ ‘All who protest and wish me to write the Commissioner to stop Lemmon, 
 arise.’ 
 
 “ (The whole houseful arose without a single exception.) 
 
 “ Rosebud: ‘We desire to have our missionaries see the letter. We have 
 decided by a unanimous vote that no more papers, contracts, etc., are to 
 be signed by us until first seen by our missionaries.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘Who are they?’ 
 
 “Rosebud: ‘Father Bernard, Winona, and Mr. Deloria.’ 
 
 “Agent Bingenheimer: ‘I cannot do that. I will send just as strong a 
 letter as I can, but I will not submit my letters to any one. However, I 
 will give you a copy and they can see the copy.’ 
 
 “Rosebud: ‘We do not mean that we cannot trust you,-but we feel safer 
 if our missionaries see what is said to be our expression; and if they have a 
 copy they cannot say in Washington that we never said it or that we said 
 something else. A copy will do us.’ 
 
 “Wakutemani: ‘We should close now, as it is late. There are many 
 lesser things we want settled while the Agent is here.' 
 
 “The meeting closed.’’ 
 
 This lease question was thoroughly treated in several articles which 
 appeared in the “Outlook,” from the pen of George Kennan, its Washington 
 correspondent. Mr. Kennan had access to the evidence in our possession, 
 and also made a careful independent investigation of all the data obtainable. 
 In the first statement, published in the “Outlook” of March 29, 1902, Mr. 
 Kennan makes charges of a serious nature against the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs, which, unfortunately, seem justified by all that has come to 
 the surface. Among other things, he says: 
 
 “ But the circumstances that attended the awarding of these leases were 
 quite as remarkable and significant as were the leases themselves. It is 
 perfectly clear, from the evidence laid before the Committee, that certain 
 cattlemen in the neighborhood of the reservation knew what was going on, 
 and had formed a ‘pool’ or syndicate to check competition, keep down rates, 
 and, if possible, shut out other bidders. This may be inferred, not only from 
 the shortness of the time allowed between advertisement and award, but 
 from the fact that the bids had a very limited range—viz., from a minimum 
 rate of three cents to a maximum rate of three cents and half a mill per acre, 
 although grazing land in the Cheyenne Reservation, just south of Standing 
 Rock, was leased at that very time for five cents per acre, and land on the 
 other side of the Missouri River for twelve cents per acre. 
 
 “But the existence of this local ‘pool’ or syndicate of stockmen is not 
 merely a matter of inference and conjecture; it is a fact of record. In reply 
 to a question from Senator Harris, Commissioner Jones said: ‘From the 
 records of the Office it appears that they [the local stockmen] have come to 
 some agreement among themselves. The land was divided into two tracts, 
 and those who have cattle near the reservation agreed among themselves 
 to put in a certain number of cattle divided proportionately on some basis. 
 
12 
 
 That was an understanding among the lessees.’ In other words, the local 
 stockmen, who seem to have had early notice of the leasing plan, formed a 
 syndicate and promptly put in their low bids. Then the quick action of 
 the Indian Office in opening these bids protected them from the competition 
 of other stockmen who, perhaps, were not so favorably situated, and who 
 did not have time, after the advertisement and before the award, to get their 
 proposals in. Senator Gamble informed the Committee that he had received 
 complaints, based on this ground, from other stockmen outside the syndicate, 
 and suggested that * the time for the opening of the bids might have been 
 more extended.’ The Indian Commissioner did not explain why the time 
 was not more extended, and when he was asked by Senator Jones whether 
 three cents an acre was an adequate price for the grazing privilege given 
 to the ‘pool,’ he replied, ‘I do not know anything about it.’ 
 
 “Mr. William V. Wade, however, of Wade, North Dakota, seems to know 
 something about it, and in a letter to Senator Jones, which was laid before 
 the Committee, he says: ‘Seeing by the papers that you are taking some in¬ 
 terest in the wrong being done the Sioux Indians by the renting of their 
 reservation to a company with which the Commissioner of Indian Affairs is 
 connected , I take the privilege of writing you upon the subject. I think it is 
 all wrong, for the following reasons.’ After stating his reasons, Mr. Wade 
 adds in conclusion: ‘A thorough investigation will show up some dark objects 
 only slightly under cover.’ 
 
 “Whether Mr. Wade’s charge that the Indian Commissioner was con¬ 
 nected with the syndicate to which the leases were made is well founded or 
 not, I have no means of finding out; but that the Indian Office has yielded 
 in another similar case to a very strong ‘ pull ’ of some sort is more than in¬ 
 dicated in a remarkable series of private letters submitted by Senator Raw¬ 
 lins and printed in the Committee’s record of its proceedings. The writer 
 of these letters—a man named Harper—is, or was, interested with others 
 in obtaining from the Uintah Indians of Utah a lease of land for mining pur¬ 
 poses; the mining rights, when obtained, to be capitalized at $3,000,000. 
 He writes letters to his associates—apparently from the office and on the 
 official letter-heads of the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs—and 
 from time to time reports progress in the effort that he is making to procure 
 the desired lease. He more than intimates that he has a very strong secret 
 ‘.pull’ in Washington; says that he is ‘hitting the high places’; boasts that 
 a certain Dr. McDonald—a post surgeon on the Uintah Reservation, who 
 has been opposing their plans—will shortly ‘ be given a change of base for his 
 health’ (that is, will be removed, through the efficacy of his—Harper’s— 
 
 ‘ pull ’); says that ‘ it may be advisable to lay low until he [the doctor] gets 
 his orders and has gone away’; cautions his associates that ‘we must protect 
 our good official friends,’ and ‘must not get any officer in a hole by anything 
 we may say or do’; declares that ‘“the powers that be” have impressed 
 the Indians with the advantages to them from leasing’; arranges for a secret 
 telegraphic cipher and a fictitious name, or the name of another person, to 
 be signed to his own telegrams, ‘ to preclude the possibility of its leaking out 
 that I am associated in the matter’; and, finally, says to his correspondent 
 ‘Jim,’ ‘“The powers that be” are very anxious to have all correspondence 
 destroyed. You will at least be very careful of same.’ 
 
 “These letters have no direct bearing, of course, upon the Standing Rock 
 case; but if they are genuine, and if the statements made in them are true, 
 they would seem to show that the Indian Office, in the matter of negotiating 
 leases of Indian lands, is not always actuated wholly and exclusively by a 
 desire to promote the Indians’ welfare.” 
 
 Commenting on this editorially, the “Outlook” said: 
 
 “We have finished one century of dishonor in our dealings with the 
 Indians; under no circumstances can we afford to begin a new century of 
 dishonor. Much of our misdoing in the past came from our failure to under¬ 
 stand the people with whom we were dealing and the provision which ought 
 to be made for them. The ignorance of the people of the United States 
 was taken advantage of by land-grabbers, speculators, and traders in and 
 out of official positions, and wrongs were perpetrated which were possible 
 only because public attention had not been focused on the Indian question. 
 In the future, however, there will be no such excuse if these wrongs are re- 
 
13 
 
 peated. The question has been discussed, the situation illuminated, the 
 rights of the Indians determined, the duties of the Government ascertained. 
 The story which Mr. Kennan tells reads like a chapter taken from the history 
 of our dealings with the Indians fifteen or twenty years ago: violation of 
 agreements, disregard of promises, invasion of rights, inefficiency—to put 
 it mildly—of those who were officially charged with the duty of protecting 
 the Indians, encroachments by moneyed interests or by aggressive and 
 selfish individuals upon Indian territory.” 
 
 This brought forth a statement from Commissioner Jones, which was 
 published in the “ Outlook,” April 19, 1902. In the judgment of the editors, 
 however, the answer was “neither adequate nor conclusive. . . . The 
 
 history of the relations of the United States Government with the Indians 
 has been such that when an accusation is made against the Government 
 in Indian matters its innocence cannot be taken for granted; it must prove 
 its integrity. Mr. Kennan’s detailed charges cannot be ignored or evaded, 
 and, in our opinion, Commissioner Jones’s own statement of the case makes 
 a thorough investigation necessary.” 
 
 The Commissioner’s side is herewith presented: 
 
 “COMMISSIONER JONES’S STATEMENT. 
 
 “To the Editors of the 'Outlook': 
 
 ‘ ‘ My attention has recently been attracted to an article in the ‘ Outlook ’ 
 of March 29th, under the title ‘ Have Reservation Indians any Vested Rights?’ 
 The article relates mainly to the action of this office in leasing the surplus 
 lands of the Standing Rock Reservation. There is in the article such a spirit 
 of unfair criticism, officious complaint, garbled statement of facts, and such 
 a broad insinuation of sinister motives on my part as to induce me to take 
 some notice of it, lest my silence might be construed as a confession of the 
 correctness of the position assumed. 
 
 “The writer evidently did not know of or has ignored the fact that for 
 years preceding the time when steps were taken by the office to lease the 
 surplus land, many thousand head of outside cattle were pastured on the 
 Standing Rock and other Sioux reservations, from which the Indians, as a 
 tribe, derived no benefit whatever. 
 
 “Three systems of pasturage were in vogue. First, the squaw-men and 
 mixed-bloods grazed their own cattle on the reservation in large numbers; 
 second, these same enterprising classes held many thousand head of outside 
 stock on the reservation, the owners paying them directly for pasturage 
 privileges; third, parties living in that part of the State permitted their stock 
 to trespass upon the reservation, paying no one for the privilege. This 
 latter class were freebooters pure and simple. Under these three systems 
 more than 50,000 head of stock have been yearly pastured upon the adjoin¬ 
 ing Cheyenne River Reservation alone, during recent years. Many of the 
 squaw-men and mixed-bloods have become comparatively rich by taking 
 in the stock of outside parties and by the paturage of excessive numbers 
 of their own. It was manifestly unfair and unjust to the tribe, as a body, 
 to permit a few intermarried whites and progressive mixed-bloods to monopo¬ 
 lize practically all the common lands of the reservation to their own ad¬ 
 vantage and profit, whereas, if the lands were leased for the benefit of the 
 tribe, all would share alike in the financial results derived. 
 
 “The office had two purposes in view in leasing these lands: First, the 
 overthrow of the illegal and unauthorized systems that had theretofore pre¬ 
 vailed; and second, the raising of revenue for the benefit of the tribe as a 
 whole. 
 
 “Realizing that the Standing Rock Reservation is essentially a grazing 
 country, and in order to encourage all the Indians to become stock owners, 
 a clause was inserted in the proposed leases making ample provision for the 
 pasturage of a reasonable number of stock for each family. This clause pro¬ 
 vides that each Indian family residing within the leased district shall be 
 permitted to hold therein, free of rent, cattle and horses which they actually 
 own to an extent not exceeding one hundred head. This clause applies to 
 
14 
 
 all families having rights upon the reservation—to the families of squaw- 
 men, mixed-bloods, and full-bloods alike. 
 
 “The writer of the article appears to be greatly exercised over the ap¬ 
 parent ‘change of heart’ by this office between May and October, 1901, rela¬ 
 tive to the issuance of grazing permits. During the summer such informa¬ 
 tion reached the office, through the reports of its inspectors, as to induce 
 it to inaugurate a system which would compel all parties that were there 
 grazing stock on the Sioux Reservations to pay the Indian Agents one dollar 
 per head per annum. This has been designated the ‘permit system’ of 
 pasturage. It did not contemplate securing the consent of the tribe for its 
 inauguration, neither did it require such action. There was no proposition 
 nor intention to invite cattlemen to bring in additional numbers of cattle 
 for grazing purposes; it simply provided that a tax of one dollar per head, 
 paid for grazing stock already on the reservation, should be collected by the 
 Indian Agents for the benefit of the tribe, instead of being paid to enter¬ 
 prising squaw-men and mixed-bloods for their individual profit. As an 
 imperative corollary to this it was necessary to inaugurate the permit system 
 for the pasturage of resident stock, in excess of a hundred head for each family; 
 otherwise the entire body of stock on the reservation might be claimed by 
 the squaw-men and enterprising mixed-bloods (whether they were bona 
 fide owners or not) and thus escape pasturage taxation—at least for the 
 benefit of the tribe, and not to a few intermarried whites and mixed-bloods. 
 The end sought justifies the means, and the same action will be taken with 
 reference to other reservations whenever it is ascertained that the same 
 conditions exist. 
 
 “From the general tone of the article, one not familiar with the facts 
 would infer that every Indian on the Standing Rock Reservation was op¬ 
 posed to the action of the office in leasing the lands. Such is not the case, 
 however. There is no regularly constituted council of the Standing Rock 
 Sioux, so that it was necessary to call a general council of all the adult male 
 members of the tribe in order to secure tribal consent to the leasing. The 
 action of the Indians in the matter is therefore embodied in the ‘general 
 council proceedings’ of December 26, 1901, which is as follows: 
 
 “‘We, the undersigned, Indians of the Standing Rock Reservation, 
 North Dakota, over eighteen years of age, hereby consent to the leasing for 
 a period not to exceed five years, for the purpose of grazing cattle thereon, 
 at a rate of not less than one ($1) dollar per head per annum for each and 
 every head of cattle so introduced and grazed upon said reservation, the 
 unoccupied portions of said Standing Rock Reservation, the consent hereby 
 given to be subject in each and every instance to the following conditions: 
 
 “‘The tract of land assigned -under each permit, contract, or lease must 
 be properly fenced, the cost of such fencing to be paid from the rental which 
 may be due for the first year. At the expiration of such permit, contract, 
 or lease, said fencing shall be and remain the property of the Indians of this 
 reservation, and during the term that cattle are so held upon this reservation 
 such fences must be kept in a proper state of repair at the expense of the 
 owner of the stock. 
 
 All persons so introducing and grazing stock will be required to exercise 
 all possible care and diligence to prevent depredations by their cattle upon 
 the leasehold of other stockmen or upon lands occupied by Indians of this 
 reservation; and in the event of the appearance of any contagious disease 
 among their herds, every possible step must be taken to prevent the spread 
 of and to stamp out such disease.’ 
 
 “[Here follow the signatures of 771 Indians.] 
 
 “‘I do hereby certify on honor that I have explained the nature of the 
 above agreement to the Indians whose names are hereto appended, and am 
 satisfied that they fully understand the same. 
 
 “‘Joseph Archambault, 
 
 ‘ ‘ ‘ Interpreter. 
 
 We certify on honor that we witnessed the signature of each and every 
 Indian whose name is hereto appended, and that they signed of their own 
 free will and accord. 
 
 “‘Witnesses: Louis Killed, 
 
 “‘Charles Ramsey.’ 
 
15 
 
 “The proceedings are signed by 771 male adults of the tribe out of a 
 total of 983. This is as nearly unanimous as could be reasonably expected 
 in a council of this kind—considerably more than a two-thirds majority of 
 the male adults. It is therefore not true that anything like a majority of the 
 tribe are opposed to the leasing. The opposition comes from a comparatively 
 few intermarried whites and mixed-bloods whose financial interests are in¬ 
 volved. They see in the inauguration of the leasing system the overthrow 
 of the abuses which they have heretofore practised greatly to their own 
 financial advantage. The remainder of the tribes are not only willing that 
 their surplus lands shall be leased, but are anxious that such action shall 
 be taken. 
 
 “It is worthy of note that the ‘Association of Returned Students,’ the 
 most intelligent and progressive element of this tribe, are heartily in favor 
 of leasing these lands. 
 
 “Again, throughout the article, the council proceedings giving the tribal 
 consent to the leasing are spoken of as an ‘agreement,’ it being broadly in¬ 
 timated that it was an agreement between this Department and the Indians. 
 It is then pointed out that the terms of the leases as drawn do not agree with 
 the tribal consent, intending to convey the impression that the Department 
 had entered into an agreement with the Indians relative to leasing their lands 
 and had then broken faith with them. 
 
 “Nothing could be further from the truth. The council proceedings 
 are in no sense an agreement —unless it be an agreement among the Indians 
 themselves, to which this Department is in no degree a party. The law 
 provides that surplus tribal lands ‘ may be leased by authority of the council 
 speaking for such Indians ... in such quantities and upon such terms 
 and conditions as the Agent in charge of such reservation may recommend.’ 
 The law, therefore, does not contemplate that ‘the council speaking for such 
 Indians’ shall do more than give its consent to the leasing; the quantity of 
 land to be leased, and the terms and conditions, are to be left to the Agent 
 in charge, subject, of course, to the directions of the Department. 
 
 “ It is pointed out that the council proceedings authorized leasing at not 
 less than one dollar per head, while the advertisements invited bids for the 
 grazing privileges by the acre. Even if it should be admitted, for the sake 
 of argument, that the Indians might dictate the conditions upon which the 
 lands might be leased, this discrepancy, if such it can be called, is more ap¬ 
 parent than real when all the facts are known. The leases provide that the 
 lessees shall not hold to exceed an average of one head of stock to each forty 
 acres; this at the rate per acre specified makes his grazing privileges cost him 
 a little more than one dollar and twenty cents per head. It serves the 
 double purpose of preventing overstocking the ranges, and at the same time 
 determines what it shall cost the lessee to graze each head of stock. f 
 
 “It is also alleged that the Indians gave their consent to the leasing of 
 the ‘unoccupied’ portion of the reservation, while one of the leases includes 
 some of the best and most thickly settled parts of the reservation, where the 
 Indians have their homes, their little gardens, their winter-hay fields, and 
 their cattle. 
 
 “This on its face seems to be a serious charge. In the first place, it was 
 not proposed to lease the eastern portion of the reservation, containing over 
 one-half its entire area. Nearly nine-tenths of all the Indians reside upon 
 this portion, east of the line of the grazing districts. The Walker lease 
 exempts and excludes one township of land in the neighborhood of Bull Head 
 Station, which includes the only thickly settled part of the reservation in 
 the leased portion. A very conservative estimate places the number in¬ 
 cluded in the leased district at not more than seventy families. An inspector 
 of this Department, who was Agent at Standing Rock from 1881 to 1895, 
 and who has frequently visited the reservation since, states that in |his judg¬ 
 ment not more than fifty families reside upon the portion it is proposed to 
 lease; but, making allowance for misinformation and for changed conditions 
 since he left, there are assuredly not more than seventy families. Again, 
 the lease form in use by this Department makes ample provision for pro¬ 
 tecting each and every Indian in his individual holdings, whether the same 
 be farms, gardens, or allotments. The clause referred to provides that all 
 allotments of land in severalty and all farms, gardens, and other improved 
 holdings of individual Indians shall at all times be free from damage or inter- 
 
16 
 
 ference by the stock or employees of the lessee. The office has always found 
 this clause to afford ample protection to the individual Indians, even on 
 reservations where there are actual allotments and where farming operations 
 are extensively carried on. It has proven effective largely from the fact 
 that all lessees of tribal lands are required to give bond, with two or more 
 good and sufficient sureties, in an amount equal to one year’s annual rental, 
 conditioned upon the faithful performance of the terms of the lease. It 
 thus transpires that the families living in the leased area will have ample 
 protection against the stock and employees of the lessees—even far more so 
 than they had prior to the inauguration of the leasing system, for it must be re¬ 
 membered that for the past several years many thousands of cattle have been 
 grazed upon the reservation, whose owners were not under bond and were 
 responsible to no one for any damage or injury their stock might occasion. 
 The leasing system is intended and will remedy these existing evils. The 
 out-boundaries of the grazing districts will be fenced so as to prevent trespass¬ 
 ing; the lessees are required to protect the individual holdings of the Indians; 
 they are required to give good and sufficient bond conditioned upon the 
 payment of the rents and the faithful performance of all the terms of the 
 lease; they cannot overstock the ranges, as they are limited as to the number 
 of cattle they can bring upon the lands at any one time. In short, it is the 
 substitution of a legal system under the control of the Department for a 
 system of internal monopoly and external freebooting. Aside from this, 
 and to obviate every possible objection, arrangements have been made to 
 furnish the individual Indians living within the leased area with wire for 
 fencing their homes and hay-fields when they so desire, and when it appears 
 that any Indian is unable for good reason to build the fences himself, the 
 Department proposes to have the work done for him. 
 
 “My motives are also impugned in the short time given to the advertise¬ 
 ments inviting proposals. From the article it would be inferred that it is 
 obligatory upon the office to give notice a long time prior to the acceptance 
 of bids. As a matter of fact, no notice whatever is required. It was com¬ 
 petent for the office to solicit and accept informal bids if it felt so disposed, 
 without giving any public notice. Such action has been taken in a number 
 of cases, but in the interest of the Indians, and to silence criticism, public 
 notices of the letting were published in four leading stock journals, the first 
 publication being made seventeen days before the day of the letting. Not 
 only this, two hundred and fifty posters soliciting proposals were sent to all 
 the leading stockmen whose addresses were known to the office. The suf¬ 
 ficiency of the advertisement is attested by the number of separate bids 
 received, which was six. In but very few instances have more than six bids 
 been received upon any one body of land in the ten years’ experience of the 
 office in soliciting bids by public advertisements. In hundreds of cases 
 there has been but a single bid upon a given grazing district, which the office 
 was forced to accept or readvertise. Any advertisement, therefore, which re¬ 
 sults in securing six competitive bids is amply sufficient. This, taken in 
 connection with the fact that it was not imperative upon this office to make 
 any advertisement whatever, should silence criticism on this point. 
 
 “As to the so-called pool referred to in the article, in which it is alleged I 
 was interested, I will state that the two highest bids upon this land were 
 coupled with conditions wholly inconsistent with the terms of the advertise¬ 
 ment soliciting proposals. Neither could have been accepted even if there 
 had been no other bids. The next highest bids—those of Lemmon and 
 Walker—were a ‘tie.’ Both had complied with all the provisions of the 
 advertisement and had deposited checks for at least five per centum of the 
 entire amount of the bid. One had no advantage over the other before the 
 office. Under such circumstances it would have been difficult or embarrass¬ 
 ing to have decided between them. Both were present in person at the time 
 of the opening of bids, and decision could only have been made between 
 them by lottery or chance. They obviated this difficulty themselves by 
 mutually agreeing to a division of the tract, Mr. Lemmon to take the western 
 and northwestern portion of the reservation and Mr. Walker the central and 
 southern portion. This was entirely satisfactory to the office, especially as 
 it would result in giving the Indians fifty-four miles of additional fence. 
 In no other sense and in no other way, so far as known to this office, was 
 there an agreement or understanding between the bidders or local stockmen. 
 
17 
 
 “It is not necessary for me to make any reply to that portion of the 
 article relative to the decisions of the courts as.to the nature or extent of the 
 vested rights of Indians in and to their reservation lands. Personally, I 
 have experienced no ‘change of heart’ upon the subject. I have always 
 contended that the consent of the Indians was necessary in order to legally 
 lease their lands and as to its final disposition. I have not experienced a 
 change of heart on this subject, but I insist that the consent of the Standing 
 Rock Indians was legally and properly secured in this case, and is now on 
 file in the office. 
 
 “In answer to the claim of the author of the article that the United States 
 has taken 9,000,000 acres of land from the Sioux, and has given them in 
 return a gold brick, made by thinly gilding a metal called ‘zinc deceit,’ a 
 brief statement of what the Sioux tribe has received under their treaties may 
 not be inappropriate. 
 
 “Under the treaties of 1868 and 1877, the Government has expended 
 for the benefit of this tribe over $38,000,000—a sum equal to $70 annually 
 for every man, woman, and child. Again, under the treaty of 1889, they 
 received as an advance payment on their ceded lands $3,000,000, which has 
 been drawing interest in the Treasury at the rate of five per cent, per annum; 
 the interest on this payment is spent annually for their benefit, and alone 
 amounts to date to $1,800,000. 
 
 “In addition to this vast sum of money, they have received 25,000 head 
 of cattle, which have been issued to them per capita, and the Government 
 issues to each allottee, when he accepts his allotment, two cows, two mares, 
 one set of harness, one plow, one wagon, one harrow, one hoe, one ox, one 
 pitchfork, and $50 in money. The total value of the deliveries so far made 
 amounts to $1,149,022; it is estimated that it will take at least $1,500,000 
 more to fulfil this part of the treaty stipulation. So that it will be seen that 
 the Sioux nation has received from the Government for their benefit the 
 enormous sum of $48,000,000 besides retaining in their several reservations [?] 
 acres of land. From the foregoing it will be seen that the ‘gold brick’ did 
 not contain much ‘zinc deceit,’ but rather that they received a veritable 
 gold-mine, that has been worked assiduously in their interest for many years; 
 and I submit that it is high time that they consent to the use, for their own 
 benefit, of some of the unoccupied millions of acres of grazing land in the 
 remote parts of their reservation, and so relieve the Government of some of 
 this heavy annual burden. 
 
 ‘ ‘ The gratuitous and slanderous insinuation contained in the article that 
 my action was prompted in the matter by sinister and interested motives, 
 I will not dignify with a denial. 
 
 “In conclusion, I will state that the action taken by the office was the 
 result of a conference with my superior officers, and meets with their entire 
 approval. 
 
 “ In justice and fairness to myself, it is hoped that you will give this reply 
 in its entirety the same publicity that you did the article to which it refers. 
 
 “Very respectfully, 
 
 “W. A. Jones, Commissioner. 
 
 “Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, 
 Washington, April 12, 1Q02." 
 
 On May 3, 1902, the “Outlook” published a convincing reply from Mr. 
 Kennan to the Commissioner’s defense. We will only preface it with the 
 statement that the leasing proposition was favored by the “Association of 
 Returned Students ” is true only to the same extent that the Indians approved 
 the scheme—namely, with the understanding that only unused land was 
 to be leased, and that it was to be designated by the committee of the tribe 
 appointed for that purpose. Mr. Kennan’s rejoinder follows: 
 
 “HAVE THE STANDING ROCK INDIANS BEEN FAIRLY TREATED? 
 
 “A Reply to Commissioner Jones’s Letter. 
 
 “By George Kennan. 
 
 “I have read attentively the reply of the Indian Commissioner to my 
 recently published article. I shall refrain from expressing any opinion with 
 
18 
 
 regard to its merits as a defense, because I do not wish to be discourteous; 
 but I will take up, in their order, the points that Mr. Jones attempts to make, 
 and briefly consider them. 
 
 “ i. He defends his illegal ‘permit-system’ order of October 9, 1901, by 
 saying that the reservation was overrun by trespassing cattle, and that it 
 was better, in the interest of the Indians, to collect a dollar a head from the 
 owners of such cattle, under the permit system, than to let the ‘freebooters’ 
 get their pasturage for nothing. I am not prepared to admit that illegal 
 action on the part of the trespassers justified the Department in condoning 
 and sanctioning the illegality by accepting payment from the wrong-doers; 
 but it is not necessary to go into the merits of that question, inasmuch as 
 there is very grave doubt as to the existence of the alleged evil. The Indians 
 themselves have never complained of ‘freebooters’; I have not been able to 
 find a single reference to trespassing cattle in the reports of the Standing 
 Rock agents to the Indian Office; trustworthy persons who have just come 
 from the reservation assure me that there are very few, if any, trespassing 
 cattle within its limits. Agent Bingenheimer said, less than a year ago, 
 
 ‘ You can ride across the country for days and never see a critter’ (Sen. Doc. 
 212, p. 91); and Mr. Jones himself declared, on the 23d of last January, before 
 the Senate Committee, that ‘there is a lot of idle land there which is used 
 neither by the Indians nor by anybody else' (Sen. Doc. 215, p. 67). I find 
 complaints of trespassing cattle in the reports of agents on other Sioux reser¬ 
 vations—particularly Cheyenne River and Rosebud—but not one from 
 Standing Rock. If the cattle were there, why did not the Indian Office have 
 them removed ? Removal, apparently, would not have been difficult. Agent 
 McChesney reports to the Commissioner that his farmers, with the aid of a 
 few Indian police, removed 8000 trespassing cattle from the Rosebud Reser¬ 
 vation in 1899. (Rep. of the Indian Commissioner for 1899, p. 341.) There 
 are nearly 4000 Indians on the Standing Rock Reservation, and they own 
 10,000 horses. Is it conceivable that they could not have driven off the tres¬ 
 passing cattle if there were any there ? And is it probable that they would 
 have submitted to such a trespass without protest if it had any real exis¬ 
 tence ? 
 
 “The Commissioner assured the Senate Committee that there have been 
 for years, and are now, more trespassing cattle on the Standing Rock Reser¬ 
 vation than it is proposed to put on under the leases. (Sen. Doc. 212, p. 18.) 
 As Lemmon and Walker, under the terms of the leases, are to have a right 
 to put one head of stock on every forty acres, or 30,000 head on the 1,200,- 
 000 acres of leased territory (Sen. Doc. 212, p. 46), the Commissioner’s state¬ 
 ment to the Senate Committee is equivalent to an assertion that there are 
 more than 30,000 trespassing cattle on the reservation now. How does he 
 propose to reconcile this assertion with his other statement that ‘there is 
 a lot of land there which is used neither by the Indians nor by anybody else,’ 
 and with Agent Bingenheimer’s assertion that ‘you can ride across the 
 country for days and never see a critter ’ ? 
 
 “As a matter of fact, the Standing Rock Reservation is not overrun by 
 trespassing cattle now, and it never has been. This defense of the illegal 
 ‘permit-system order,’ therefore, is a breastwork of straw. 
 
 “2. In a letter from New York to Assistant Commissioner Tonner, written 
 on the 15th of May, 1901, Mr. Jones expressly said that he could not inaugu¬ 
 rate the permit system without the Indians’ consent, and directed the Assist¬ 
 ant Commissioner to ascertain from Agent Bingenheimer, by telegraph, 
 whether the Indians had not ‘ experienced a change of heart ’ in the matter. 
 If they had—that is, if they would consent—he ‘ would issue permits at once ’ 
 (Sen. Doc. 212, p. 63). He now says, in reply to my article, that the Indian 
 Office ‘ did not contemplate securing the consent of the tribe ’ for the inaugu¬ 
 ration of the permit system, ‘neither did it require such action.’ In May 
 last he said he must have the Indians’ consent, and now he says that he didn’t 
 need it and had no idea of asking for it. Which statement is true? It is 
 hardly possible that both can be true. 
 
 “But there is another point of that permit-system order upon which 
 Mr. Jones contradicts himself. The last sentence of the order reads as fol¬ 
 lows : ‘ Due care should be taken by you ’ (Agent Bingenheimer) ‘ not to admit 
 such number of outside stock as to overgraze the lands.’ If this means any¬ 
 thing, it certainly means that the Commissioner expected the order to result 
 
19 
 
 in the bringing in of ‘outside stock.’ He now says, however, in reply to my 
 article, that ‘there was no proposition nor intention to invite cattlemen to 
 bring in additional numbers of cattle for grazing purposes; it’ (the order) 
 'simply provided that a tax of $i per head should be paid for grazing ’ (tres¬ 
 passing) ‘stock already on the reservation.’ The order says outside cattle 
 are to be brought in; but his reply states that there was no intention to bring 
 outside cattle in. Which of these statements is true? 
 
 “ If there were no trespassing cattle on the reservation, the permit-system 
 order which frightened and coerced the Indians into an agreement to lease 
 cannot be justified or excused on that ground. If there was no consent on 
 the part of the Indians, it was in violation of a treaty obligation. 
 
 “The only other defense set up by the Commissioner is that ‘the end 
 sought justifies the means.’ Morally and legally, that is a very shaky propo¬ 
 sition in any circumstances, and it is far from constituting a good defense 
 when the ‘ end sought ’ was the acquirement, in the interest of a cattle syndi¬ 
 cate, of lands that the Indians had refused to give up, and the ‘means’ were 
 a broken promise and a violation of a guaranteed right. The testimony 
 given before the Senate Committee shows conclusively that the consent of 
 the Indians to lease their lands was obtained from them by means of the 
 coercive influence of this illegal permit-system order. They consented to 
 lease, not because they wanted to do so, nor because they were willing to do 
 so; but because they were, as they said, ‘under pressure,’ and could escape 
 The permit system in no other way. Metaphorically speaking, their consent 
 was obtained with a club. (Sen. Doc. 212, pp. 51-53.) 
 
 “3. The next point of the Commissioner’s reply raises the following ques¬ 
 tion: When the Indians gave a qualified consent to lease—that is, a consent 
 to which certain stipulations and conditions were attached—had the Depart¬ 
 ment discretionary power to ignore all the conditions and still hold the In¬ 
 dians to the consent ? 
 
 “The Commissioner says that ‘the council proceedings’ (the conditions 
 of the consent) ‘were in no sense an agreement, unless it be an agreement 
 among the Indians themselves, to which the Department is in no sense a 
 party.’ As a legal proposition, and in a very strict sense, that may be true; 
 but in the circumstances of this case it amounts to an assertion that the 
 Indians have no right or power to attach any stipulation whatever to their 
 consent to lease lands. They may not say that they will lease only un¬ 
 occupied lands; nor that they will lease only one-third of their reservation; 
 nor that they will lease only a certain specified township. If they once con¬ 
 sent to lease a single acre as pasturage for one small foreign calf, the Depart¬ 
 ment, in its discretion, may take away from them a whole million acres, 
 throw that million-acre tract open to‘foreign cattlemen, and then say to 
 them (the dissatisfied Indians), ‘Your council proceedings, by which you 
 attempted to limit the amount of land you would lease, have no binding 
 force as against the Department. It is true that we can’t take a single acre 
 of your reservation without the “authority of your council speaking for 
 you’” (Act of Congress of February 28, 1891), ‘but if you once consent to 
 lease that single acre, we can throw open to cattlemen as much of your terri¬ 
 tory as we think best—occupied or unoccupied—and upon such terms as 
 we choose.’ 
 
 “That may be good law, but it strikes me as a very dubious proposition 
 from an ethical point of view. The Act of Congress which authorizes the 
 leasing of Indian lands reads as follows: 
 
 “‘Where lands are occupied by Indians who have bought and paid for 
 the same, and which lands are not needed for farming or agricultural pur¬ 
 poses, and are not desired for individual allotments, the same may be leased 
 by authority of the council speaking for such Indians, for a period not to 
 exceed five years for grazing or ten years for mining purposes, in such quan¬ 
 tities and upon such terms and conditions as the agent in charge of such 
 reservation may recommend, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the 
 Interior.’ (Act of Congress of February 28, 1891.) 
 
 "I do not know whether this law has ever been judicially construed or 
 not; but its intent would seem to be to give the Department a certain super¬ 
 visory control over the decisions of the Indian councils in the matter of land, 
 with a view to restraining such councils when they show a disposition to lease 
 their lands injudiciously, in too large quantities, or at a foolishly low price. 
 
20 
 
 Its object was to protect an inexperienced and naturally improvident people 
 from exploitation by the whites. Congress, apparently, intended to say: 
 ‘ You may lease, for your own benefit, such parts of your lands as you do not 
 need; but you must act in such matters through your council, and its de¬ 
 cisions, as to the quantity of land to be leased and the terms of payment 
 therefor, are subject to Departmental supervision and control.’ It seems 
 to me extremely improbable that Congress intended to give the Interior 
 Department power to lease two million acres of land that the Indians had 
 ‘bought and paid for,’ when the council had agreed to lease only one-third 
 of that amount, and to turn cattlemen and their cattle into the occupied 
 parts of the reservation when the council had consented to lease only the 
 unoccupied parts. 
 
 “4. But there is another aspect of the case that should have attention 
 in connection with the Commissioner’s plea that the conditions of the Indians 
 have no binding force on the Department. After being frightened by the 
 threat of the permit system, the Indians were finally induced to consent to 
 a lease by certain promises and representations made to them by the Depart¬ 
 ment’s agent. Mr. Bingenheimer admitted, before the Senate Committee, 
 that the Indians agreed to lease only their unoccupied lands; that he ‘did 
 not propose to lease anything they wanted to use ’; that he distinctly prom¬ 
 ised them that the unoccupied land should be determined and its boundary 
 fixed and staked out by a commission to be composed of three representative 
 Indian chiefs and himself; and that this promise or agreement had not been 
 fulfilled. (Sen. Doc. 212, pp. 84, 85, 89, and 90.) If Mr. Bingenheimer did 
 not report these promises and representations to the Indian Office, and did 
 not inform the Commissioner that the Indians were relying on them, he 
 dealt unfairly, not only with the Indians, but with the Department whose 
 agent he was. If, on the other hand, he did report them, and they were 
 found objectionable, the Department should have disavowed them and 
 given the Indians a chance to recall their consent. It may have been legal, 
 but it certainly was not fair, to hold the Indians to their consent and at the 
 same time repudiate the Bingenheimer promises by means of which that con¬ 
 sent was obtained. This was evidently the view of Senator Jones (of Arkan¬ 
 sas) , who said before the Senate Committee: ‘ The law requires that the con¬ 
 sent of these Indians shall be had with regard to whatever shall be done 
 with this land; and the statement was made by the Agent that the Indians, 
 in their council, provided that a committee should be appointed to designate 
 what were the unoccupied lands; and there can nothing else be done under 
 the law in regard to this agreement. . . .’ The committee was to point 
 
 out to the Agent what was unoccupied land. ‘ When you go out ’ (addressing 
 Commissioner Jones), ‘ you point out- a lot of land they have not designated, 
 and you say if there are some who do not want to stay in it, they may fence 
 off their land.’ (Sen. Doc. 212, pp. 89 and 87.) 
 
 “This was evidently the view also of Senator Stewart, the Chairman of 
 the Senate Committee, who said: ‘ The Indians were to lease unoccupied land 
 and it was their understanding that there was to be a committee of three 
 appointed to designate them. That should be carried out.’ 
 
 “5. The question that now presents itself is, ‘Why were the promises 
 made by Agent Bingenheimer not fulfilled, and why did he not go out with 
 the Indian committee last fall to fix and stake out the boundary of the “un¬ 
 occupied land” as he agreed?’ The Commissioner’s reply throws no light 
 upon this question, but I can answer it, if he does not. The boundary¬ 
 lines of the territory to be leased had been fixed in the Indian Office, and the 
 leases had been drawn and printed before the Indians gave any consent what¬ 
 ever to lease any part of their lands. The Commissioner felt so sure, ap¬ 
 parently, that the threat of the permit system would bring the Indians to 
 terms that he decided what part of their reservation he would give to the 
 cattlemen, fixed the boundary, drew up the lease or leases, and then ordered 
 Agent Bingenheimer to call a council and get the Indians’ consent to a cut- 
 and-dried scheme. This, at least, is the explanation given by Mr. Bingen¬ 
 heimer himself, who now declares that his promises to the Indians were 
 made in good faith, but that he could not fulfil them because the Commis¬ 
 sioner took the whole matter out of his hands. With reference to his appear¬ 
 ance before the Senate Committee in Washington last February, Mr. Bin¬ 
 genheimer now says: ‘ I could only say what the Commissioner would let me 
 
21 
 
 say, and only know what he allowed me to know. If I had been free to speak, 
 I could have told a whole lot.’ The fact that the interesting and valuable 
 information which Mr. Bingenheimer evidently has with regard to this leasing 
 was not drawn out of him by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is only 
 another proof that, as I said in my first article, the proceedings of that Com¬ 
 mittee were ‘so unsystematic, inconsecutive, and inconclusive as to leave 
 almost everything in doubt.’ 
 
 “Senator Platt objects to my statement of this case. He is a man of 
 unimpeachable integrity and honesty of purpose, and he evidently believes 
 that I am misled, if not misleading; but if he had co-operated with Senator 
 Jones, and had asked Agent Bingenheimer a few searching questions, he 
 might have brought out the ‘whole lot’ that the Agent says he could have 
 told, and might thus have furthered the cause of justice and national honor. 
 It was perfectly evident that the Indians were not getting ‘a square deal’ 
 at the hands of Mr. Jones, Mr. Bingenheimer, or both, and it was the duty 
 of the Senate Committee to ascertain why. 
 
 “The reason for the failure to keep faith with the Indians has been given 
 by Agent Bingenheimer since my first article was written. On the 22d of 
 March Commissioner Jones telegraphed the Agent to let Mr. Lemmon pro¬ 
 ceed with the building of his fence, on a line that would inclose thirty or 
 forty Indian houses and a considerable part of the Indians’ Grand River 
 lands. As soon as the work began, the Indians called a council to protest 
 against the fence-building, and asked Mr. Bingenheimer to be present and 
 explain why he had not kept his agreement to go with them and run the 
 line that this fence should follow. The council was held on the 12th of this 
 month—the very date of Mr. Jones’s reply to my article—and was attended 
 by all the leading chiefs and most of the male Indians in the central part of 
 the reservation. . . .* 
 
 “I invite Senator Platt’s attention to the proceedings of this Indian 
 council, held only two weeks ago, and would like respectfully to ask whether 
 in his judgment they are the reflection of a square, honest deal on the part 
 of the officers of the United States? These Indians are not loafers or idlers. 
 According to the report of Commissioner Jones for 1900, they raised that 
 year 3491 bushels of oats, barley, and rye; 19,971 bushels of corn; 10,016 
 bushels of vegetables, and 21,799 tons of hay. They cut 2376 cords of wood, 
 and transported from distant railway stations 2,332,000 pounds of freight. 
 They owned at that time 10,082 horses and 12,213 cattle. (Report of the 
 Indian Commissioner for 1900, pp. 668-699.) 
 
 “They seem to have done their level best to earn their own living on 
 a semi-barren, semi-arid reservation where there is little work to be had; 
 where agricultural crops fail two years out of three on account of drought; 
 and where cattle-raising is almost the only possible industry. Instead of 
 recognizing their efforts to do what they can while they are accumulating 
 enough cattle for self-support, the Indian Office cuts down their rations fifty 
 per cent.; gives them notice of another impending cut of fifty per cent.; 
 threatens them with the permit system in order to force them to consent 
 to a lease; ignores the terms and conditions of the consent thus obtained; 
 turns cattlemen and half-wild Texan cattle into the occupied parts of their 
 reservation; and finally, when they protest, tells them, through its Agent, 
 that they will have to starve if they do not submit, and that they had better 
 keep quiet and sell fence-posts to the lessees at six and a quarter cents apiece! 
 
 “6. The Commissioner says, in his reply to my article, that the Indians 
 are ‘willing and anxious’ to lease their lands, and that all the opposition 
 there is comes from a few squaw-men and half-breeds, ‘who see in the in¬ 
 auguration of the leasing system the overthrow of the abuses which they 
 have heretofore practised.’ I think the council proceedings above set forth 
 are a sufficient answer to this statement. If the Indians are ‘willing and 
 anxious’ to lease, they have a queer way of showing it! 
 
 “7. The Commissioner says: ‘The Walker lease exempts and excludes 
 one township of land in the neighborhood of Bull Head Station which in¬ 
 cludes the only thickly settled part of the reservation in the leased portion. 
 A very conservative estimate places the number included in the leased dis¬ 
 trict at not more than seventy families.’ 
 
 “Since the beginning of this controversy between the Indians and the 
 
 * The proceedings of this council are published elsewhere in this report. 
 
22 
 
 Commissioner—viz., in the early part of March—the Rev. T. L. Riggs, 
 who has been long and favorably known in connection with mission work 
 among the Sioux, made a careful investigation of the Standing Rock leases, 
 at the request of the Indian Rights Association, and sent to that Association 
 a full report upon the subject. Concerning the number of Indian families 
 included within the leased district, he says . . .* 
 
 “ If a region that is inhabited by 876 Indians, with 11,000 head of stock, 
 is not an ‘occupied part of the reservation,’ I should be glad to know what 
 the Commissioner’s definition of ‘occupied’ is. At the rate of one head of 
 stock to every forty acres (the proportion of cattle to land adopted by the 
 Indian Office), these 11,000 horses and cattle would occupy a range of 440,000 
 acres—almost exactly the amount of land leased in this very region to Mr. 
 Walker. 
 
 “In view of this and many other discrepancies between the statements 
 of Commissioner Jones on one side and the statements of the Indians and 
 disinterested investigators on the other, there would seem to be urgent and 
 pressing need for a thorough and impartial investigation of the whole subject 
 by some person or persons not connected with the Indian Office. 
 
 “Washington, D. C.” 
 
 INDIAN CONTRACT LABOR. 
 
 In addition to the objectionable leasing project, the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs has formed a plan to which we desire to call attention, by 
 which male adult Indians are to be hired out as contract laborers at $1.25 
 a day to employers wherever work can be secured for them. The first place 
 selected to try this novel experiment is the Standing Rock Reservation. 
 We regard this project with disfavor for the following reasons: First, it will 
 remove the Indians from their families, with almost certain moral loss to 
 them, and will further take them away from their farms which they should 
 be encouraged to cultivate and their homes that they should become attached 
 to; second, it will make it easy for designing persons to covet and become 
 possessed of the Indian lands from which the owners have been removed; 
 third, all such contract projects are subject to grave abuse; they offer facili¬ 
 ties for defrauding laborers who are so employed. The Indians would offer 
 special temptation to persons disposed to imposition in view of the unsatis¬ 
 factory character of Indian agents, who would superintend the working 
 of the system, and because of the ignorance of the Indians of practical affairs. 
 
 In pursuance of instructions received from the Commissioner of Indian 
 Affairs, Agent Bingenheimer distributed a number of copies of a printed 
 circular reading as follows: 
 
 “INDIAN LABOR. 
 
 “Standing Rock Agency, N. D., 
 
 “ March 28, 1902. 
 
 “ Notice is hereby given that there are on Standing Rock Agency, N. D., 
 five hundred and thirty-four (534) able-bodied Indians who are desirous 
 of obtaining employment off the reservation in caring for stock, farming, 
 as day laborers on railroads, or other labor of this class. 
 
 “Correspondence is invited from farmers, railroads, employment agencies, 
 or any persons who may desire to secure such laborers, stating the approx¬ 
 imate number it is desired to secure, and what wages you are willing to pay 
 (with or without board) for the same. 
 
 “The cost of transportation to and from the places of employment will 
 not be borne by the Government, but must be borne by the employers or 
 by the Indians themselves. 
 
 “Address all communications to 
 
 “George H. Bingenheimer, 
 
 “ United States Indian Agent. 
 
 “Standing Rock Agency, Ft. Yates, N. D.” 
 
 *See page 5. 
 
23 
 
 A correspondent whom we have known for many years, residing near the 
 reservation, who is unusually intelligent and accurate as to opinions ex¬ 
 pressed, writes regarding this matter: 
 
 “Some proposals for bids for the Indians to labor on railroads, etc., are 
 being scattered. They say that there are 534 Indians, able-bodied, wanting 
 such work. I do not believe that there are 34 such men who have not help¬ 
 less families and cattle and horses. These Indians are not ditch-diggers; 
 they are nearly all farmers or stock-raisers. Not one of the 534 has been 
 asked whether he wants such work, and not one has passed a medical ex¬ 
 amination. Shall they be banished? Russia’s rules won’t work with people 
 born in free America. I do not believe the men will go. They may starve 
 them or shoot them, but I cannot believe they can enslave them.” 
 
 A summary of the Commissioner’s instructions to the Sioux Indian Agents 
 where the plan is to be followed is given in a Washington letter to the Phila¬ 
 delphia “Public Ledger.” It is as follows: 
 
 “ . . . It is known that the Indians do not want to go away from 
 
 home in this way, but have been encouraged by the policy of the Department 
 heretofore to expect that they will get work at home, and so be able to build 
 up their small farms and homes and be with their families. 
 
 “The object of the Commissioner is in part to cut down the rations allowed 
 to adults. A few weeks ago this policy was outlined in a long letter from 
 the Indian Office to the leading Sioux agencies, suggesting the reduction of 
 the outlay for subsistence and clothing, and the use of the money saved in 
 this way in employing the Indians on the reservation as far as possible, at 
 $1.25 a day of eight hours, this employment to be in lieu of all supplies. It 
 is proposed that this employment should be performed under the supervision 
 of the agent or some of his deputies on whatever work is required to be done 
 for the good of the community. On all the reservations there is more or less 
 work to be done building roads, dams, or reservoirs for storing water for stock 
 or irrigation; putting up fences, cultivating land, cutting hay and doing a 
 great Variety of similar work. This proposed change was intended to be 
 worked out during the next fiscal year, 1903. But agents were urged to 
 recommend a reduction of 25 per cent., if possible, in flour, beef, and other 
 supplies due, but not yet furnished this year, with a view to using this money 
 thus saved in hiring Indians on public works after April 1st. All Indians 
 that could not be employed on the reservations were to be sent off wherever 
 employment could be had. To work out this self-supporting method of 
 dealing with the Indians, the agents were asked to furnish the Department 
 with information as to the number of aged, sick, infirm, and helpless, and 
 the number of able-bodied Indians. It was also desired to know how many 
 Indians could be employed on the reservations and how many would have 
 to be sent off. 
 
 “It was announced in this letter that the recommendations for the esti¬ 
 mates and recommendations for supply for the next fiscal year would be 
 reduced according to the statements made by the agents, and the money 
 saved to be applicable for labor. Among the instructions given in this general 
 letter was one in relation to self-supporting Indians. For all such the agents 
 were told to withhold rations and clothing, and if anything was furnished 
 them to require full value in cash or labor. The agents were also told to 
 strike from the ration roll all the names of able-bodied Indians as soon as 
 they were furnished employment, and not to put them back on the ration 
 roll as long as they had work. 
 
 ‘“If employment is offered,’ said Commissioner Jones, ‘ to any able-bodied 
 Indian who is not already self-supporting, and who shall refuse such employ¬ 
 ment, he shall also be stricken from the ration roll, and shall not be replaced 
 thereon, but may be furnished with employment whenever he applies for it. 
 Instead of an Indian agency being a center for the gratuitous distribution of 
 supplies, it should be an employment bureau.’ 
 
 “The Commissioner also advises that Indian girls who have returned from 
 school should be placed in good, respectable white families to work. This, 
 however, is not to be proposed in the public advertisements, but is to be 
 accomplished by private correspondence. The Commissioner also says that 
 
24 
 
 he favors the employment of Indians by companies or individuals rather than 
 by the Government, and his preference is for railroads and cattlemen. 
 
 “The fact that the Commissioner has been very strenuous in putting 
 through leases of the Standing Rock grazing lands gives color to the suspicion 
 that a part of his purpose in farming out the able-bodied Indian labor of that 
 reservation is to remove from the reservation a large number of Indians 
 who might otherwise remain there and engage in stock-raising. Under the 
 power given the agent an Indian who has made a little start in stock-raising 
 can be very easily forced to consent to be sent away, as a refusal on his part 
 would cost him the forfeiture of his rations, and he would regard it wiser to 
 get $1.25 a day than to let his family starve. . . .” 
 
 GENERAL CONDITIONS AMONG THE STANDING ROCK INDIANS. 
 
 Mr. Riggs submitted a separate report with regard to the welfare in gen¬ 
 eral of the Standing Rock Indians, which is, in our opinion, of very great 
 value: 
 
 “ REPORT ON LAND ALLOTMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS. 
 
 “By Rev. T. S. Riggs. 
 
 “In reporting upon the question of allotments and other related subjects 
 for the Indians occupying reservations in grazing regions, I would say that 
 I not only give the results of my own studies, but also the thought of many 
 others on the field who have for years given more or less attention to these 
 matters. 
 
 “ Paternalism. 
 
 “No one who has observed the drift of management in recent years has 
 failed to see in it a kind of paternalism both demoralizing and infamous. 
 The Indian as a ward of the Government is ordered out, not taught; he is de¬ 
 prived of former personal liberties, but not educated to the use of the freedom 
 of the citizen. Schools are established and he is ordered to send his children, 
 or punished if he does not. Force is used where instruction is needed. A 
 far too common threat of the guard-house for any and all errors and offenses 
 is the usual method of control. Agents and sub-agents, as well as inspectors, 
 resort to this. Then, too, the Indian is deprived of harmless personal liber¬ 
 ties, privileges, and rights which should rather be encouraged and forwarded 
 as a means of development. They are in many cases not allowed to go off 
 the reservation in search of work or for the disposition of the product of work 
 at home. The ‘pass’ system is enforced and every man who has a horse, of 
 his own raising, to sell must first have a permit to seek a market. On some 
 agencies a permit is necessary if an Indian would make sale of this horse to 
 another Indian living in the. same village. The Indian service is fast running 
 to the extreme in absurdities of control, the effect of which not only retards 
 individual and race development, but fills the better-minded and more in¬ 
 dependent Indians with contempt and the feeling that former days were 
 better than the present, and savage life preferable to so-called civilization. 
 Doubtless there is some excuse for this condition, arising out of the necessity 
 for guidance and protection. I insist, however, that it is guidance and 
 protection that are needed and not brute • control and suppression. 
 
 “ Rations. 
 
 “An effective instrument in these later days for enforcing the lawless 
 as well as lawful orders has been the ration system. ‘ If you do this I’ll take 
 away your ration-ticket,’ and ‘if you do not do this I’ll take your rations 
 from you,’ are arguments that have been all-powerful and the use of which 
 often has been abused. On this account, if for no other, it will be a benefit 
 to the Indian to have the system abolished. That there are difficulties in 
 the way of dropping the ration system no one denies. The old people and 
 the sick will have to be provided for, but there really is no more reason why 
 an able-bodied Indian should not work for the food he eats than that a white 
 man or black man should be exempt. The day for sickly philanthropy that 
 blinks this fact of nature has gone by. The principle of ‘root, hog, or die’ 
 is sound; and the only difficulty lies in the method of enforcing the adoption 
 of this with our Indians. And here is where in our dealings we have been 
 wickedly slow and criminally oblivious. Plans should have been made years. 
 
25 
 
 ago and intelligently worked out by which the ration-receiving Indians 
 should now be entirely self-supporting and the ration system have quietly 
 disappeared. As it is now there will be something of a shock and there will 
 be unavoidable hardship and suffering. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of 
 men who are in position to know, that the sooner rations can be stopped, 
 the better it will be for the Indians themselves. 
 
 “Indians to Work. 
 
 “I fully approve of the proposition that our Indians go to work, and 
 also of the purpose of the Indian Office to furnish work for Indians. If it 
 be nothing better than digging a hole in the ground on Monday and filling 
 up this hole on Tuesday, it will be the best move the Indian Office has made 
 in many a year. I asked an agency farmer, a few days ago, what he thought 
 of the plan. He said, ‘ It is all right.’ ‘ How many of your Indians can stand 
 eight hours of work a day and keep it up?’ was my next question. ‘Not 
 many of them, at first,’ he replied. ‘How long will it be, in your opinion, 
 before the plan may be expected to be to any considerable extent in success¬ 
 ful working order? ’ was my last question, to which he replied that it would 
 ‘require a full year in some neighborhoods, two years with most, and longer 
 than that at other places.’ I give this, as it expresses my own thought in 
 the matter, and as a warning that we do not look for entirely satisfactory 
 results too soon. Doubtless, were there only first-class men in charge of 
 the detail of the working out of this plan, as well as in all superior positions, 
 we might reasonably expect earlier results. The great difficulty of this plan 
 of giving employment to Indians lies in the character of the men who will 
 have charge of it—the section bosses and sub-agents who will come into direct 
 contact with the Indian workman. 
 
 “Land Allotments. 
 
 “There seems to be more or less well-founded fear of the allotment of 
 land in severalty. A few years ago it was supposed that land ownership 
 would settle the entire Indian question. This is not so confidently asserted 
 now, for already have there been too many glaring failures. And it is easy 
 to see that in a grazing region one hundred and sixty acres of land will not 
 support a stockman. That our western Indians are to become tillers of the 
 soil is not seriously entertained. The nature of the region which they occupy 
 is opposed to such. At first large sums of money were expended by the 
 Government for the purchase of seeds and agricultural implements; these 
 implements were never used sufficiently to offset interest on expenditure. 
 Then the Indian Office went to the other extreme and no seeds were issued 
 and no encouragement given to even garden farming. Stock-raising was 
 talked and spasmodic efforts made in that direction. On a few agencies 
 the raising of cattle was carefully looked after by the authorities; on others, 
 no attention was given. The result is what might be expected. On Stand¬ 
 ing Rock Reservation the Indians now own about fourteen thousand head 
 of cattle and these are well distributed. On the Cheyenne River there are 
 but few Indian owners of herds of cattle. There has been no uniformity 
 in method and no continuity of management in this matter. As in earlier 
 days farmers were appointed who had absolutely no knowledge of or fitness 
 for giving instruction in agriculture, so now the management of the stock 
 interests of a reservation has been haphazard and viciously ignorant. 
 
 “ But to come back to the matter of allotments. It is proposed to give 
 the Indian larger allotments of land classified as grazing lands. His home¬ 
 stead and his grazing allotment are all of a single class. He holds the one 
 the same way that he holds the other. This does not tend to give him any 
 true conception of the dignity of land-owning. His possessions are too large, 
 in fact, for this, while far too limited to correspond with his inbred concep¬ 
 tion of his lordly ownership of former days. That he needs this large hold¬ 
 ing if he becomes a successful stock-raiser is quite true. It is, however, 
 likely to become a real source of embarrassment to him in the future. 
 
 “My plan, if I might state it here, would be to allot a homestead of reason¬ 
 able extent—say 160 acres—to every head of a family, and proportionate 
 amounts to the children and others of the family—make this allotment in 
 trust for a number of years; at the end of which term title in fee would stand 
 to the allottee. Then I would have a grazing allotment made on an entirely 
 
26 
 
 different basis, giving each head of the family the use of a definite tract of 
 land, to be located as carefully and exactly as the homestead, but held by 
 the Government for the use of that individual. In fine, I would first allot 
 homesteads to all and then have as much of the remainder of the reserva¬ 
 tion as would be necessary, broken up into individual family reservations. 
 The details of such a plan could be easily worked out and there is no apparent 
 objection to its successful issue. 
 
 “Such a plan would remove the necessity of and could readily make 
 impossible any attempt to lease reservation lands to outside cattlemen. It 
 is a fact that Indians, at first, look with but little favor upon the cutting up 
 of their reservations into individual holdings. They accept the necessity 
 of this with misgivings and slowly. It is equally a fact, however, that the 
 reservations must go, and I submit this plan, outlined most briefly, as a pos¬ 
 sible solution of some of the many difficulties to be overcome in making the 
 change. 
 
 “Oahe, S. D., March 17, 1902 .” 
 
 Since the foregoing was placed in the printer’s hands we have learned 
 that the Honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs attended a council of 
 the Indians held at Standing Rock Agency, on April 30, 1902. 
 
 The Commissioner is reported to have stated to the Indians that the 
 Indian Office had not been fully informed as to their condition and needs, 
 and that if he had been better acquainted with the situation he would not 
 have insisted that their lands be leased; that the order to inaugurate the 
 “permit system’’ by January 1, 1902, was intended only to regulate the 
 pasturing of such stock as was found within the reservation limits, and not 
 intended as a coercive measure to force the tribe to accept the proposition 
 to lease their lands, and that no member of the tribe having cattle outside 
 the Lemmon lease would be compelled to pay one dollar per head for the 
 number in excess of one hundred. 
 
 He stated that since the Lemmon lease had been executed it would be 
 allowed to stand unless revoked by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 but that the proposed lease of other of their lands would not now be thought 
 of. 
 
 The Commissioner told the Indians that he realized they could not sup¬ 
 port themselves upon an allotment of land such as is provided for by the 
 Dawes Severalty Act, which contemplated lands of greater productive power, 
 but that he would urge that their reservation be proportioned equally among 
 them. This plan would give to each member of the tribe about six hundred 
 and forty acres. 
 
 The Commissioner seems to have been surprised to find that these Indians 
 were not blanketed and painted, rather expecting that outside of the Re¬ 
 turned Students’ Association many of these old customs prevailed. 
 
 We believe the agitation that has followed the unwise decision to lease 
 the lands at Standing Rock, followed by the protest of the tribe and others, 
 will be of great value to the Indians in the future. 
 
 The Commissioner left with the council many good words of encourage¬ 
 ment and advice that will be beneficial to the tribe. 
 
 The Government has now a wiser conception of the condition and need 
 of these Indians, and will no doubt apply this knowledge in the future effort 
 for their advancement. 
 
 As Corresponding Secretary of the Association, I would respectfully urge 
 upon members of our Society and other friends of the Indian the importance, 
 first, of a careful consideration of the foregoing facts, and, secondly, a re- 
 
27 
 
 spectful, yet vigorous, agitation, with these facts as a basis of action, through 
 the medium of newspaper articles and letters to Senators and Representa¬ 
 tives, on the subject treated in this pamphlet. It is only through such 
 agitation and through an intelligent, vigorous public sentiment aroused by 
 it that the reforms which our Association seeks can be accomplished. 
 
 All rights of the Indian, whether in land, in home, or in legal protection, will 
 inevitably be ignored and he thrust to one side, helpless and uncared for, 
 unless public sentiment shall demand better treatment for him. His rights, 
 however, can be protected if we intelligently exert ourselves to that end. We 
 need, not only at Standing Rock, a higher and better type of Agent than we find 
 in Agent Bingenheimer, but we need that higher type at all Indian agencies. 
 Leasing schemes and contract labor schemes, which have an unpleasant odor 
 to them, and which need so much the expenditure of money and time to 
 expose and to thwart, as has been required by our Association in this in¬ 
 stance, can best be prevented by the simple expedient of extending civil- 
 service reform principles and civil-service reform rules to the post of Indian 
 Agents. In view of what President Roosevelt has done for civil-service 
 reform in the past, we confidently hope and believe that he will make this 
 extension of the reform a signal feature of his administration, just as in 
 President Harrison’s administration we had civil-service reform inaugurated 
 in the Indian service by the extension of the rules to the Indian school service, 
 and subsequently President Cleveland made the extension of the rules which 
 covered almost the entire Indian service, leaving only that particular ad¬ 
 vance of the reform to which I have referred—viz., the inclusion of the 
 position of the Indian Agent under some proper arrangement of the merit 
 system. We have had reason to believe that this matter has already re¬ 
 ceived some measure of the President’s attention. The existence, however, 
 of an active, widespread public sentiment in favor of such a plan for rescuing 
 the position of Indian Agent from the mire of spoils politics will prove of 
 great assistance to such executive action. 
 
 H. W. 
 
1 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 ' ' 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 .. . 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
48114 2