Hall Reservation. We think there is great danger that they cannot possibly get relief in the present suit.

Again, the juridictional act requires that

The petition shall be verified by the attorney or attorneys employed to prosecute such claims under contract with the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians * * *

Their contract is not with the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians, but it is with the small group of Indians residing at Washakie, Utah.

As a matter of fact, it seems to us quite apparent that there is no jurisdictional basis at all for the present suit.

As bearing on the question whether the attorneys in the present suit have authority even to represent the Washakie Indians, we call attention to the following facts with reference to the various contracts under which they have pursued the litigation. They first presented to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs a contract dated the 19th day of March 1926 by and between the "Northwestern Band or Tribe of the Shoshone Tribe of Indians, residing in the State of Utah," as parties of the first part, and Charles H. Merillat and Charles J. Kappler, as parties of the second part. The contract was signed by Thomas J. Pabawena, John S. Pabawena, and William Ottogary, for the Indians. Along with this contract was submitted the minutes of a meeting of said Indians held March 19, 1926. The minutes state that the meeting was held at Ogden, Utah, 50 miles from the site of this reservation, in the office of Chez & Douglas.

Now, I have attended a number of Indian general councils and I cannot understand how a general council of a tribe of Indians can be held in the office of a lawyer.

The minutes recite as follows:

That at a meeting of the Shoshone Indians, members of the Northwest Band or Tribe of Shoshone Indians, residing in and about Washakie, Box Elder County, State of Utah, after notice having been given to all persons interested, held meeting at Ogden, Utah, March 19, 1926, at the office of Chez & Douglas, in the First National Bank Building, at 2 o'clock on said day, pursuant to said notice.

There is no affirmative showing of any kind that a quorum of the Indians was present or in fact that any Indians, other than those who signed the contract, were present. That contract terminated on April 20, 1932.

Subsequently, a second contract was entered into April 28, 1932. It is between the "Northwestern Band or Tribe of Indians of Utah and Idaho," as parties of the first part, and Charles H. Merillat and Joseph Chez, as parties of the other part. Now, please note that while the first contract only purported to be in behalf of the Indians living in Utah, the second contract purports to be in behalf of the Indians living in both Utah and Idaho, and this notwithstanding the fact that at most the only Indians concerned in both contracts were the Indians living at Washakie, Utah. Attached to this contract was a paper reciting that it was approved at a counsel meeting of the Shoshone Tribe of Indians held at Ogden, Utah, on June 29, 1931. Again there is no affirmative evidence of any kind to show the number of Indians present, nor to show that any Indians outside of those who signed the contract were in Ogden.

On account of the death of Mr. Merillat, which occurred November 4, 1935, a third contract was entered into but not until February 24,

1937. It recited that it was between the Northwestern Band or Tribe of Shoshone Indians of Utah and Idaho on the one hand and Joseph Chez, Charles J. Kappler, and Herman Galloway on the other.

Attached to this contact was a certificate reciting that the contract had been authorized at a General Council of the Northwestern Shoshone Indians held on the 26th day of February 1937, at Salt Lake City, which is approximately 100 miles from Washakie. This certificate recited in part:

Whereas the general council of the Northwestern Shoshone Indians was called to meet on the 26th day of February 1937, A. D., at Salt Lake City, for the purpose of selecting an attorney or firm of attorneys to represent them in connection with their claims against the United States and for the further purpose of selecting tribal delegates to enter into and execute such contract.

When the first two contracts were executed the law office of Joseph Chez, Esq., was at Ogden, whereas when the third contract was signed he had moved his offices to Salt Lake City, and it was probably in those offices that the meetings of the general council of the tribe were held.

No notice with regard to the action taken by the Indians at Ogden and Salt Lake was given to the Fort Hall Indians and no representatives of those Indians were present.

It is doubtful whether even all the Indians at Washakie, outside of those who signed the contract, were given notice of the meeting. Certainly no notice was given by the Superintendent, who would normally attend to such a matter. This appears from the fact that after the contract was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, and he, in reliance on the certificate attached thereto, had approved the same and it had come to the attention of the Superintendent, he wrote a vigorous letter of protest to the Commission of Indian Affairs in which, among other things, the Superintendent said:

This is the first information the Superintendent had that a contract was being made between the Indians of the Northwestern Band at Washakie, Utah, and the attorneys named.

There has always been more or less dissension among the Indians living at Washakie. * it has been impossible to organize them into a business

group.

There is a question in the mind of the Superintendent as to whether or not the Indians who signed this contract actually represent the entire group. At any rate, the names of a number of the leading Indians of this group do not appear in this contract.

As a matter of fact, when the third contract was entered into

Mr. SHEPPARD (interposing). Would it be the thought of counsel now testifying before this committee that it would be impossible to intervene in the action now pending until there was a jurisdictional bill enacted into law?

Mr. WILKINSON. If not impossible it is at least uncertain whether we can intervene in the present action, Mr. Chairman, because the present jurisdictional bill has no provisions permitting it, and further the time during which suits may be filled in that case has expired.

Mr. ABE MURDOCK. Is there any question, Mr. Wilkinson, even under this jurisdictional bill, if, and when it is passed, of your ability to come into the present suit as intervener?

Mr. WILKINSON. May I say, Mr. Murdock, that we intend to present to the committee for the committee's consideration, and with the consent of the author of the bill, Mr. Clark of Idaho, certain amendments which will permit that very thing.

In the next place we think that we are prejudiced in the present suit because of the fact that the court, and I say this with full knowledgethe court is not going to look with much favor upon a suit involving millions of dollars with probably 70, or maybe 132 Shoshone Indians, as plaintiffs. Certainly it would help the present suit considerably to have hundreds of Indians suing, if we were permitted to intervene.

The present suit is prejudiced by the fact that since a large body of Shoshone Indians are not represented therein, counsel have not had the benefit of their interested cooperation.

On the other hand, if the present suit is won, the Northwestern Shoshones of Fort Hall have no assurance that they will participate in the judgment.

As the Fort Hall Indians are not represented by counsel in the pending suit, it is obvious that counsel in the present suit, will be in a position to say that any judgment obtained is for the exclusive benefit of the Indians they represent, namely the Indians living at Washakie. It is true that counsel in the present case, now that they are confronted with the assertion of the rights of our clients, take the position that if there is any recovery in the present case, it will inure to the benefit of the Northwestern Shoshone Indians. But no protecting reference of any kind is made in behalf of the Fort Hall Indians either in their petition or in their brief. The ex parte statements or statements outside of the record by counsel have no binding force in the Court of Claims.

In fact, this statement of counsel is quite inconsistent with the attitude taken by the same attorneys prior to the assertion by our clients of their rights, for in the petition, in the present suit, they assert with respect to Northwestern Shoshone Indians on the Fort Hall Reservation, that "there are only a few stragglers." Furthermore, it is doubtful whether any attempt made by counsel in the present case, which is not a part of the record, can be binding upon them.

Another item deserves consideration and that is this: According to the report of the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office there are offsets in the form of gratuities, under the present jurisdictional bill, which aggregage approximately $3,000,000. Most of this sum is made up of gratuities which have been furnished to the Indians at Fort Hall and the Government undoubtedly will take the position that these gratuities should be offset against any claim brought by any Indians living at Fort Hall. This is an issue that should not be litigated behind the backs of the Northwestern Indians living at Fort Hall.

Just a few more words and then I am through. The jurisdictional bill which we are asking has so much in its favor that it is not at all surprising to find that it is favored, not only by the Secretary of the Interior but also by the Attorney General; and even the Bureau of the Budget is so much impressed with the claim that the committee is advised that the pending bill "is not in conflict with the financial program of the President." You gentlemen know that is unusual.

May I say that I am authorized to state for Congressman Clark that he is out of town and unable to be here, but he has personally authorized me to state he is in favor of the amendments that we intend to submit to the committee and we will be glad to take up the amendments whenever the committee wishes to consider them. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Wilkinson, you have read both H. R. 6559 and S. 2253?

Mr. WILKINSON. I have.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Does either of the two bills meet the approval of the witness, and if so, which one?

Mr. WILKINSON. I have talked the matter over, Mr. Chairman, with the author of the bill, and he prefers that his bill, H. R. 6559, be reported rather than the Senate bill, and we are willing to acquiesce in that suggestion.

I am handing to the chairman now, and to the various members of the committee, certain amendments which are found pasted on pages 2 and 3 of the bill, and I desire the committee and the chairman to consider those, and I would like to state that those amendments were proposed as a result of suggestions by the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General, and further because of the urgent need of the Indians being permitted, if necessary, to intervene in the present suit. I shall not read those amendments now, but I will ask for the privilege of reading them and commenting upon them when the committee reaches that point.

Mr. SHEPPARD. The time of the gentleman has expired. Do you have anything further to say?

Mr. WILKINSON. That is all at this time.

Mr. SHEPPARD. We will now hear from Attorney Galloway. Please state your name for the record.

STATEMENT OF HERMAN J. GALLOWAY, ESQ., WASHINGTON D. C.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Whom do you represent, Mr. Galloway?

Mr. GALLOWAY. I represent, with Joseph Chez and Charles J. Kappler, the Northwestern Band or Tribe of Shoshone Indians of Utah and Idaho.

Mr. SHEPPARD. How much time would the gentleman require?

Mr. GALLOWAY. I think I can make my statement in 10 minutes. Mr. GEHRMANN. I ask unanimous consent that the witness be given 10 minutes.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Without objection the gentleman will have 10 minutes. You may proceed to make your statement.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, with Charles J. Kappler of Washington, D. C., and with Joseph Chez of Salt Lake City, now attorney general of Utah, I represent I believe the Northwestern Shoshone Indians. I may add that the first contract of importance in this case was executed many years ago, was duly approved by the Interior Department and various renewals thereof have been executed since that time. The last contract was executed in April 1937, and it was duly approved by the Office of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department.

Now, we have no interest in this situation except insofar as we represent the Northwestern Shoshone Indians and except insofar as the proposed legislation bears upon the pending suit in the Court of Claims.

I will call the committee's attention to the fact that the petition in that suit is entitled "The Northwestern Band or Tribe of Shoshone Indians and the individual members thereof, petitioner," so that there can be, in my opinion no question but what it includes in the

title all of the members of the Northwestern Shoshone Indians regardless of where they may be located or what they may be now doing. In addition to that, we contend, and we feel that the facts full substantiate it, and certainly the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department agreed by their approval of the contracts that our contracts of employment were executed by the duly authorized representatives of the Northwestern Shoshones wheresoever those Shoshones were located, and that we therefore represent the entire tribe. The acts of others who come in at this late date, merely add confusion to a case which is very near to a conclusion. The facts in this case further show that these contracts were duly executed by formal tribal organizations, after holding regular meetings. They were executed before the required officers of the law. They were presented to the Indian Office and they were approved by the Indian Office and by the Secretary of the Interior. They were filed in court and proceedings have been had for almost 10 years under those various powers of attorney.

Now, what difference does it make in this suit whether these gentlemen are permitted to intervene? The situation here is this: If a judgment is rendered against the United States in favor of the Northwestern Shoshone Indians, the amount awarded goes into the Treasury of the United States and it remains there until Congress decides how it shall be apportioned. In addition to that it inures there to the benefit of every Northwestern Shoshone Indian wherever he may be located. So that this suit, which we think has been properly brought, and we feel has been properly prosecuted, and we feel it is well on the road to a successful adjudication-that this suit will be an adjudication of the rights of the Northwestern Band of Shoshone Indians without further delay and without further confusion.

Now, one thing further. Mr. Wilkinson says that there have been certain contracts signed by the Northwestern Shoshones at the Fort Hall Reservation. I know nothing of that. Our contracts as I stated began years ago and continue up to the present by various renewals and extensions. When testimony was taken in this case a number of Indians from the Fort Hall Reservation appeared and testified on behalf of the plaintiff in this case. I think it is certain that we do represent them when they appeared in our case and testified. I might add further that we have written communications and direct authorizations from most of those located in and around the Fort Hall Reservation as well as in Nevada and outlying territory. Now, under these circumstances, if the committee please, we can see no reason for creating the confusion that would result in the case if this legislation is passed when in that case the Government has had our brief since last February; has been preparing their brief since that time and the Court of Claims has placed the case on the trial calendar for May. The Government counsel says he may require a slight extension of time to complete his brief but in all events the case is about ready for final presentation to the Court of Claims and determination on behalf of all of the Northwestern Shoshones irrespective of where they may be located and any money awarded goes into the Treasury of the United States, and then it is up to the Indians. to prove that they are Northwestern Shoshones before they can share.