such stipulation or agreement has been entered into or considered or what was the subject of or result of said conference.

Affiant states that no stipulation on his behalf or on behalf of the Indians of California, the claimants in said suit, should be entered into except by attorneys of record in said case duly representing said parties; that as there are no attorneys of record representing the claimants at the present time, if any stipulations have been entered into, said stipulation would have no binding force or effect on affiant, a party of interest in said litigation, or upon the Indians of California, who are represented by their attorneys above named.

No obligation is cast upon the Attorney General of the State of California to prosecute the action; Congress has permitted, it has no power to command him. The parties in interest should have, and by right have, the control of the case, and they desire that their attorneys above named and whom they have hired for that purpose be recognized as the attorneys of record, or one of them, for said claimants and be thus on the same legal footing as a party in any suit. [fol. 27] Wherefore, affiant, for himself and in behalf of the said Indians of California, most respectfully prays this honorable Court for its order permitting the said claimants to be formally represented on the records of this Court by their said attorneys.

(Sgd.) W. G. Walker.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 day of Nov. 1934. (Sgd.) Lawrence I. Lyons, Notary Public, in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California, My commission expires Nov. 27, 1935. (Seal.)

[fol. 28]

EXHIBIT "B" TO PETITION

AFFIDAVIT OF PETER WILLIAMS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Humboldt, ss:

Peter Williams, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That his name is Peter Williams; that he resides in Requa, in the County of Del Norte, is a member of the Requa Indian Auxiliary, one of about one hundred similar Indian organizations throughout the State of California, which said organizations are auxiliary to the Indians of California, Inc., a California coporation, and which comprise upwards of seventeen thousand Indians banded together for the purpose of encouraging and promoting all movements intended to enhance the welfare of the Indians of California physically, morally, socially, and educationally. That regularly elected delegates of said Auxiliaries, chosen for that purpose, and of which affiant was one, at [fol. 29] their meeting in San Francisco, California, in September 1928, employed three attorneys, J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and James M. Hanley, by contract dated the 24th day of September 1928, to represent the Indians of California in the action, permitted the said Indians under the Enabling Act of May 18, 1928, against the United States Government in relation to the settlement of their claims against the United States by reason of certain unratified treaties made in 1851-52; that said contract was ratified subsequently by each and every one of said Auxiliaries.

That upon the employment of the said attorneys, the said delegates to this Convention went into conference with the Attorney General of the State of California, the Hon. U. S. Webb, at his office in the State Building, San Francisco, and handed to the said Attorney General a copy of the contract entered into with the said Henderson, Hanley, and Pemberton.

That these delegates of the Auxiliaries to the Indians of California, Inc., represented ninety-one Auxiliaries, 13,163 Indians of California, more than three-fifths of all the Indians of the State, and acted for and on their behalf; that almost one year thereafter on the 12th day of August, 1929-the Attorney General, Hon. U. S. Webb, did file an action for and on behalf of the Indians of the State of California against the United States in accordance with [fol. 30] the authority given him under said Enabling Act, said suit being entitled "The Indians of California, Claimants, by U. S. Webb, Attorney General of the State of California vs. The United States" and known as "No. K-344" of the Court of Claims of the United States.

That the claimants in said action are not represented by any attorney of record; that the Attorney General of the State of California appears only in his representative capacity for and on behalf of the Indians of California.

That at a subsequent convention of duly elected delegates held in September, 1934, Thomas L. Sloan was employed in the place and stead of said James M. Hanley. The said contract of employment was again ratified, and J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and Thomas L. Sloan are now the duly employed and acting attorneys of the Indians of California, the claimants in said action.

Affiant now says that the Indians of California are very desirous that they be represented by J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and Thomas L. Sloan, attorneys chosen by the regularly elected delegates of the said Indian Auxiliaries, and employed to represent them in the case of the Indians of California against the United States, authorized to be filed by Act of Congress on May 18, 1928, and commenced under authority of said Act by the Attorney General of California, U. S. Webb, on the 14th day of August, 1928.

[fol. 31] The said attorneys were duly authorized to and have petitioned this Honorable Court to recognize one of them as the attorney of record in this case, representing the said Indians of California, and affiant further states that the said Indians of California are very desirous that this Court should grant that petition for the following reasons:

(a) The Indians have known these attorneys for many years. J. W. Henderson has taken a personal interest in all the activities of the Indians of the State for many years in their effort to better their conditions physically, morally, socially, and educationally. We have unbounded confidence in both the integrity and the ability of our attorneys and know that they have already accomplished much in our behalf in this case by insisting on the petition filed by Attorney General Webb being adequately amended so as to properly protect our interests. (b) The Attorney General of California, as the Indians believe, is not in a position to properly and adequately attend to our case. He took fifteen months within which to file the original petition, which as pointed out to him by our said attorneys failed to indicate properly who are the claimants. The petition showed that he did not understand even the nature or extent of the claims of the Indians. He failed to make these amendments for more than two years after the errors had been pointed out to him. The amended petition filed on March 14, 1932, by Attor- [fol. 32] ney General Webb embodies in it the amendments proposed to him by our attorneys.

On September 25, 1928, shortly after the Enabling Act had been passed and upon the occasion of his being notified of the employment by the Indians of California of J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and James M. Hanley as their attorneys, he told the Indian delegates that "he had known these attorneys for many years and that we had chosen very wisely." Since that time we have employed said Thomas L. Sloan, who has been substituted in the place and stead of said James M. Hanley.

(c) The Indians at the said conference with Mr. Webb on September 25, 1928, offered to him the services of their said attorneys in order that the petition might be early prepared and filed. During many months thereafter before the petition was finally filed we frequently and earnestly requested him not to delay but to file the petition as speedily as possible. It is estimated by our people that this undue delay has cost the Indians many hundreds of thousands of dollars in the loss of interest on his estimated amount of the judgment thus deferred.

Mr. Webb further stated at the said time and place that our attorneys were employed by a corporation (now known as "Indians of California, Inc.") whereas the truth is as in the affidavit stated, said attorneys were employed by the delegates of the one hundred or so Indian Auxiliaries [fol. 33] thereunto duly authorized. The contract of said employment was handed to Mr. Webb in the presence of affiant in Mr. Webb's office at San Francisco on the very next day after the same had been executed and shows on its face who are the parties who executed the same.

The Indians of California never desired Attorney General Webb to act for them; they do not now desire him; they are satisfied that he is not in a position to properly act in the case, and, for the above reasons, have lost what confidence they ever had in him.

We are advised that we have the right to make our own contracts. We, the Indians, know that it was never the intention during any time throughout the proceedings with reference to the securing of the Enabling Act, in which proceedings we took an active part, to prevent us from having our own attorneys. We felt then, and we feel now, that the Congress of the United States only suggested as a matter of convenience to us that the Attorney General of California might file this petition for us. He did that, and we feel now that we should be permitted to be represented by our own attorneys. We are satisfied with our contract, and we are much pleased with our attorneys with whom we contracted to

represent us. If the time should come when we do not want them any more, we feel that we would have the right to discharge them just as we had the right to retain them. That is a right that we feel every citizen has. As a matter of fact, we have substituted as one of our attorneys the said Thomas L. Sloan in place of the said James M. Hanley.

[fol. 34] We think that the Court in reading Section 5 of the Enabling Act, which provides specifically that the Attorney General of California cannot get an attorney's fee, and that no part of our judgment can be appropriated to pay any expense of the State of California incurred by attorneys-ostensibly employed by Mr. Webb-will arrive at the conclusion that by inference the Congress recognized that we had the right to employ our own attorneys and pay them, and that is all we are doing.

(d) Affiant was present in this Court on Monday morning the 14th of March, 1932, and heard Attorney General Webb state that he would have nothing to do with anyone who had any connection with our Executive Representative, Mr. F. G. Collett, and we now state that for that reason he should have nothing to do with the Indians of California for Mr. Collett is today most highly respected and very greatly appreciated by the Indians of California, whom affiant is here representing.

We know that the greatly improved condition of our people and their better understanding of their problems is very largely due to him and his interest in the Indians of California. It is due very largely to his untiring efforts that the Enabling Act was initiated and has become a law, which has permitted us to have an opportunity after eighty years of neglect to secure at least a small measure of redress for the loss occasioned our people in the past. Without his intimate knowledge of our case and valuable assistance therein the Indians feel that they would be de- [fol. 35] prived of a valuable supporter.

Our people do not want Attorney General Webb in the case, but do greatly value the assistance of F. G. Collett. Contrary to Mr. Webb's statement to this Court, Mr. Collett, Mr. Henderson, and other representatives of the Indians of California, Inc., have taken special pains since the passage of the Enabling Act to explain to the Indians of California that the Act in its present form does not contemplate a per capita payment to the Indians from any judgment that may be awarded. It has also been explained to the Indians that it is entirely within the power and discretion of Congress, after the judgment has been rendered, to provide for a per capita payment provided there are adequate justifications therefor.

Attorney General Webb, in the presence of this affiant, in this Court in March 1932, made statements regarding the progress of this case which were not in accordance with the facts which had a tendency to mislead the Court. He stated that he had a certain conference with the Department "soon after the passage of the Enabling Act", whereas in truth and in fact his own correspondence shows that that conference was had more than two years thereafter.

(e) At the same time, the 14th of March 1932, in this Court the Attorney General of California read to the Court a letter sent out to the Indian Auxiliaries regarding the payment of the dues of the members and the securing of funds for our organization work and for the carrying out [fol. 36] of our contract with our said attorneys. Affiant desires to state that the said letter was ordered circulated by our Indian leaders, and we wonder if the Attorney General of California meant to criticize our people for their efforts to collect the dues of their members in order to enable us to carry out our contractual obligations and pay our debts. Our people should not be discouraged but should rather be encouraged in their desire to manage and conduct their own affairs and organization work for their benefit along the lines of good business procedure. The Attorney General of California instead of giving some attention to the case he says he was authorized to prosecute in the Indians' behalf is apparently relying too much on the information received from the defendant in the case and allowing personalities to injure the cause he is supposed to champion.

Affiant during his lifetime has been associated, or in contact with, all of the Indians of California. During the past ten years when the work looking to the securing of an Enabling Act has been most active he has traveled extensively among the Indians. As disclosed above in this statement, we, the Indians of California selected Messrs. Henderson, Pemperton, and Sloan as our attorneys, and during all of his travel, association, and contact he has yet to learn of a single Indian who is opposed to our contract, and who is opposed to Messrs. Henderson, Pemberton, and Sloan representing us as attorneys in this case.

[fol. 37] The above facts and ideas expressed affiant believes to be the sentiments and ideas of our people all over the State of California.

In behalf of the Indians of California, whom affiant has the honor to represent at this time, affiant most respectfully and earnestly prays this Honorable Court to recognize our attorneys, J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and Thomas L. Sloan, or one of them, as attorneys of record in this case for the Indians of California.

(Sgd.) Peter Williams.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of October, 1934. (Sgd.) K. E. Giaiolini, Notary Public, in and for the County of Humboldt, State of California. (Seal.)

[fol. 38]

EXHIBIT "C" TO PETITION

Affidavit of Theron Worth

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Humboldt, ss:

Thereon Worth, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That his name is Theron Worth; that he resides in Eureka, Humboldt County, California, and is a member of the Trinidad Indian Auxiliary, one of the many similar organizations of Indians throughout the State of California, numbering in their membership about 17,000 Indians, organized for the express purpose of encouraging and promoting all movements intended to enhance the welfare of the Indians of California. Affiant has read the affidavit of Peter Williams, made by him for the purpose of being used with this affidavit in connection with the motion of our attorneys in this Court to [fol. 39] have one of our attorneys recognized by this Court as attorney of record in this case representing the claimants herein. Affiant says that all the allegations of said affidavit concerning the conventions of delegates in the month of September 1928, and in the same month in 1934 in entering into the contract of employment of our attorneys and the ratification thereof, as well as the employment of Thomas L. Sloan in the place and stead of said James M. Hanley are within the knowledge of this affiant, are true, that affiant was one of the delegates at each of said conventions.

That he has traveled much among the Indians of the State and attended very numerous meetings of the different Indian Auxiliaries in all parts of the State, and knows the sentiments and ideas of his people in all parts of the State. Affiant states that all the statements made in the affidavit of said Peter Williams concerning the progress of the case, the meeting with Attorney General Webb at his office in September 1928, and what is said in said affidavit regarding the popularity and usefulness of said Collett is absolutely true of affiant's own knowledge.

That on or about the month of September 1928, affiant called at the office of Attorney General Webb in San Francisco for the express purpose of learning of the status and progress of the said Indian case that he might give such information to his people. Affiant was not accorded the [fol. 40] reception and treatment a client would have the right to expect from his attorney, but on the contrary he received no information of the case but only indifferent-not to say discourteoustreatment.

That in July 1934, at San Francisco, affiant was one of the eight Indians, a committee charged by the Indian delegates representing the said Auxiliaries of the California Indians, to call upon and to request the Attorney Ceneral of California to associate their attorneys with him in their case so that the Indians might know and feel that they were being represented by attorneys of their own in the case. The Attorney General at that time gave the committee a respectful hearing and promised to give their request careful consideration, and that he would within a couple of days confer with their attorneys concerning their request and prayer. Notwithstanding that promise, although more than four months have elapsed and although the attorneys for the Indians have repeatedly requested his answer, both by telephone and letter, the Attorney General has not carried out his promise and has failed, as affiant is informed and believes, to answer courteous written requests to do so.

Further, affiant states that Attorney General Webb has caused to be circulated false and misleading statements regarding the case which has tended to mislead and confuse our people concerning these matters. Our people do not want Attorney General Webb to handle our case. At the [fol. 41] present time no attorney or attorneys of record represent the claimants in said action. The case at issue, is a case of great importance to the Indians. The Indians as litigants believe, and are advised, that they have the right to be represented by attorneys

of their own choice in the case. As citizens of the State and of the United States they have the right to be so represented and unless so represented will never be satisfied they they have had their day in Court.

The Attorney General has stated openly that he and no one else was in charge of the case. Our people did not employ him. They do not want him and insist on being represented in the case by their own chosen attorneys.

Affiant was present at the hearing of the Sub-committee of the Senate at San Francisco, July 2, 1934, when the said committee stated as its opinion that it was improper for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or for any department or representative of the government to interfere with the Indians' choice of attorneys or the preparation and prosecution of their said suit in the United States Court of Claims. Senator Thomas made the statement, which was acquiesced in by Senator Wheeler that, "The Indians of California will never have had a fair hearing and their day in Court until they are represented in the suit by attorneys of their own selection".

Wherefore, affiant for himself and in behalf of the said Indians of California, whom he has been delegated to represent in this way, most respectfully prays this honorable [fol. 42] Court for its order permitting the said claimants to be formally represented on the records of this Court by an attorney of their own choice.

(Sgd.) THERON WORTH.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of October 1934. K. E. Giaiolini, Notary Public, in and for the County of Humboldt, State of California. (Seal.)

[fol. 43] V. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO "PETITION TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR THE CLAIMANTS

Filed November 17, 1934

This is the second attempt by these petitioners to have J. W. Henderson “recognized as the attorney of record herein of said claimants.” On December 21, 1931, a petition similar in all essential respects to the one now before the Court was filed. Objections to the allowance of the petition were entered by the defendant and by the Honorable U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California and attorney of record for the plaintiff Indians. Oral argument was had on the petition, and on March 21, 1932, this Court entered its order denying the petition, being of the opinion that it was without authority under the jurisdictional act to grant it.

The situation, insofar as the Court's authority to proceed in the matter is concerned, remains unchanged. The jurisdictional act has not been amended in this respect since the filing of the petition on December 21, 1931.

It is not necessary to argue before this Court that in granting consent to be sued the Congress can attach any condition it sees fit, as that principle has been long established. As pointed out in the defendant's objections to the earlier motion, under the jurisdictional act in this case (Act of May 18, 1928, 45 Stat. 602), one of the conditions at- [fol. 44] tached to the consent is that the suit shall be instituted and prosecuted by the Attorney General of California; and, as stated, the Congress has not varied this condition by subsequent legislation. The condition is, of course, conclusive on the Court, and it is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition to have J. W. Henderson recognized as the attorney of record must be denied.

Harry W. Blair, Assistant Attorney General;
George T. Stormont, Attorney.

[fol. 45] VI. OBJECTIONS OF CLAIMANTS TO "PETITION TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR THE CLAIMANTS"

Filed December 24, 1934

Now Come The Indians of California, claimants in the above-entitled court and cause, by U. S. Webb, Attorney General of the State of California, and object to the granting of the petition of Messrs. J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and T. L. Sloan for the recognition of J. W. Henderson ". as attorney of record, acting in behalf of the claimants herein, 'The Indians of California"", upon the following grounds and for the following reasons: