Mr. O'NEAL. Was it an official meeting representing the entir tribe?

Mrs. JEMISON. No, sir. It represents, as I stated, a group of this tribe, and this is signed by Sarty Cowe, chairman.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you know how many were present at the meeting or how representative it was of the membership of the Creek Tribe Mrs. JEMISON. We have here attached to it a petition, endorsed by-I believe I counted signatures for the Senate committee, ari there were 305 signatures.

Mr. O'NEAL. What was the total membership of the tribe?
Mr. BRUNER. Twelve thousand.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. What percentage of all the Indians do you represent?

Mr. BRUNER. Do you mean this organization?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes.

Mrs. JEMISON. We have 3,500 members.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. What percentage is that?

Mr. BRUNER. The Commissioner says there are 350,000 Indians all told.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is 1 percent.

Mrs. JEMISON. That is our organization, but these are all matters in which these individual tribes have asked us to present their state ments for them.

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes; we will be glad to have them. Go ahead with your statement.

Mrs. JEMISON. In explanation of that I will say that by agreement with the Federal Government in 1901 the Creek Nation was dissolved There were to be no more Creek chiefs except on the appointment of the Executive department.

At that time the Creek Nation had tribal property which Lau been sold on long-term leases, or long-term notes, you might say Mr. BRUNER. They were town lots.

Mrs. JEMISON. The deeds specified that they were not to be delivered until such time as the town lots were paid in full and when that deed was delivered it was necessary that a chief be appointed to sign that deed. Since the death of Chief Hill there have been no chiefs appointed since 1914. There have been only two occasions when it has been necessary for a chief to be appointed for the Creek Tribe.

Up until the present Commissioner of Indian Affairs came into office. and after he came into office he had this chief appointed by Executive order, and out of the Creek tribal funds he is paid a salary of $600 per year, and that is what is objected to. They are objecting to paying that that is from their funds under "General support and administration."

Now due to the fact that I have such a limited time, I did not bring the papers to substantiate some of the statements which I make here. If the committee wishes to go into these in detail I can bring them.

FORT PECK INDIANS OPPOSE SALARIES FOR SUPERINTENDENT AND DOCTOR

I believe the Indians of the Fort Peck Agency oppose, and they have requested us to oppose the appropriation of salaries of John G. Hunter. the superintendent, and Dr. Dahlstrom, because of their negligence of duty, which make them objectionable.

Mr. JOHNSON. Where is that?

Mrs. JEMISON. Fort Peck, Mont.

Now in behalf of the Federation-that is the American Indian ederation-I will say this:

APPROPRIATION FOR SALARIES OF INDIAN OFFICIALS OPPOSED

We are opposed to the appropriation of any money for the salary of y Indian judges or policemen, due to the fact that the Bureau of idian Affairs maintains in such offices in many instances the very orst element among the Indians.

Mr. JOHNSON. You do not mean to say that the Indian Office is ppointing the very worst Indians to these judgeships, as judges? Mrs. JEMISON. I did not say in all instances, but in many instances. Mr. JOHNSON. Does that obtain in any other place except in your nmediate vicinity, or do you know about conditions at other places? Mrs. JEMISON. I am representing the national organization and y knowledge is based on record facts.

Mr. JOHNSON. Does that condition apply to the entire country, or s that applicable to just one particular area?

Mrs. JEMISON. No; it covers the entire system.

OPPOSITION TO USE OF TRIBAL FUNDS FOR BRINGING DELEGATIONS TO WASHINGTON TO SUPPORT INDIAN BUREAU

Mrs. JEMISON. We are opposed to the appropriation of any money from tribal funds to bring tribal delegations to Washington for the reason that no tribal delegation leaves the reservation and has its expenses paid from these tribal funds without the consent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

You have a condition arising there where Indians are brought to Washington to speak solely for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they do not speak to represent the Indians, and the Indians who wish to come to Washington to really represent the interests of our people have to get here the very best way they can, and Members of Congress seldom hear from the Indians themselves.

These tribal funds are used to bring these delegates here to speak for the Bureau politics.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you mean by that that the Indians who come to Washington come here speaking altogether for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they do not come to speak for the Indians themselves? Mrs. JEMISON. In many instances that is so.

Mr. JOHNSON. You modify your statement?
Mrs. JEMISON. I would say in most instances.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know what the situation is in other States, but in Oklahoma, where we have more than one-third of all the Indians in the United States, the Indians who come here are elected by their tribe without any interference whatsoever on the part of the Indian Office, or without any suggestions on the part of the Indian Office, and they come here representing their own interests and make their own pleas and requests to this committee and to the Indian Office.

Mrs. JEMISON. In Oklahoma you have very few restricted Indians to begin with, and your Indians there are citizens, which makes a great difference.

Mr. LEAVY. Are not most of the Indians now citizens?

Mrs. JEMISON. They are restricted citizens. They are only voting wards. That is all that it amounts to. They are restricted in th manner: The Bureau of Indian Affairs has full control of their property and their resources.

Mr. LEAVY. I am not trying to defend the Bureau or find fach: with your activities, but this group that you represent, are you presenting their viewpoint?

Mrs. JEMISON. I am presenting the viewpoint of our organization. Mr. LEAVY. You are speaking insofar as your members are con cerned, that is the Indians whom you represent? What percent you say it was of the total number?

Mrs. JEMISON. We have 3,500 members and that would be 1 percent. Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I was trying to find out.

Mr. LEAVY. And for how long have you been engaged in this activity?

Mrs. JEMISON. I have been engaged in Indian Affairs for about 3 years.

Mr. LEAVY. And you maintained your office here in Washington during that period?

Mrs. JEMISON. No; I have been here, or rather the federation has had an office here in Washington for the past 2 years.

Mr. LEAVY. And it maintains it from what source of revenue? Mrs. JEMISON. Principally contributions.

Mr. LEAVY. Of Indian members?

Mrs. JEMISON. Yes; we have very little contributions from white people.

Mr. LEAVY. And these grievances come from Indians beyond the groups that are actually affiliated with you?

Mrs. JEMISON. These grievances that I have brought out were for the Fort Peck Indians and for these Creek Indians, and those two are not affiliated with us. Now in regard to these federation

matters

Mr. LEAVY. Of course, Mrs. Jemison, you are giving your life to this work from the Indian viewpoint, and it is only calling for an opinion, because you have qualified as an expert. Is it your opinion that the Indian would be far better off if the United States Government let him go his way?

Mrs. JEMISON. Absolutely, and that is the object of our organization.

OPPOSED TO APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF PEYOTE AMONG THE INDIANS

Mrs. JEMISON. I have not seen the requirements that are before you, but I will say this, that if there are any appropriations in these requirements for the suppression of peyote among the Indians we are opposed to this because the Commissioner of Indian Affairs is protecting the peyote Indians in their use of this drug, and in our opinion

e is encouraging its use, and any money that is so appropriated is waste of such funds. We are opposed to any money appropriated r the suppression of this.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is your organization opposed to the use of peyote? Mrs. JEMISON. Yes; our organization is opposed to the use of

evote.

Mr. JOHNSON. But at the same time you are opposed to this comittee appropriating any funds for its suppression?

Mrs. JEMISON: Yes; due to the fact that the Commissioner is enouraging its use among the Indians.

Mr. JOHNSON. If you have any evidence in connection with that e will be glad to have it.

Mrs. JEMISON. Well, the publication that the Commissioner puts ut called Indians at Work, I do not remember the exact date, but it ives a long write-up in there, and it sets forth what he is doing in New Mexico regarding the use of peyote and protecting the Indians n the use of peyote.

(See Indians at Work, Nov. 15, 1936.)

We have had evidence in other places that the peyoto-users have ncreased in numbers. He is encouraging the Indians to tell the people who are trying to suppress the use of peyote among them that t is a part of their religious rites.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Commissioner made some such statement before the committee.

Mrs. JEMISON. He made that statement, that it is a part of their religious rites. He made the statement that it is part of what he calls the Native American Church. That is something that exists only in his mind.

Peyote was imported originally from Mexico, and he is encouraging these Indians in its use and supporting them in their use of peyote by saying that the use of peyote is just as sacred as the sacraments of the Christian church, and that is why they should use it. Does that answer your question?

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you evidence that the statement is incorrect, that it has no place in the religion of the church, and that what the Commissioner contends is untrue?

Mrs. JEMISON. Yes; I think that is very easily obtainable.

Mr. JOHNSON. If you have any such evidence we will be very glad to receive it.

Mrs. JEMISON. I will be glad to furnish something on it.

That is the trouble with trying to say anything about Indian affairs, because there are so many things that are brought into it.

APPROPRIATION FOR ARTS AND CRAFTS COMMISSION OPFOSED

We are opposed to the appropriation of any money for the Arts and Crafts Commission.

It is our opinion that the Arts and Crafts Commission will not do any good for the Indians, and taken in connection with other Bureau attempts to revive the customs of a long time ago, it would tend to put the Indian into a state where he cannot sell his products freely as he should be allowed to do.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then you are not in favor of permitting the Indis to make any beads or Indian trinkets or other things that are peculiar to the Indians to help them to support themselves?

Mrs. JEMISON. Absolutely, as individual effort and enterprise. Mr. JOHNSON. But you are opposed to the Indian Office's efforts to help the Indians to be self-supporting to that extent?

Mrs. JEMISON. That is not the purpose of the Arts and Craf Commission.

I could go into a lengthy discussion on that. If you desire I work be glad to come before you and do it.

The Senate committee is investigating all of these things, starting tomorrow afternoon, and I believe that they will cover the fiel thoroughly.

Mr. JOHNSON. You say that is not the purpose of this Arts and Crafts Commission?

Mrs. JEMISON. No, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then what is the purpose of the Arts and Crafts Commission?

Mrs. JEMISON. I do not have the bill before me.

Mr. JOHNSON. The committee is, I think, thoroughly famili with it.

Mrs. JEMISON. If I had a copy of the bill before me I could poin: out the sections wherein an unlimited authority is given to that Arts and Crafts Commission to say what shall be genuine Indian products and what shall not, and to issue the trade mark for those things.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you object to the trade mark being on the India trinkets so that the public would know what they are buying?

Mrs. JEMISON. I do not object, but I do object to the trade mark being used as a means of keeping Indians from producing something which is genuine, but because the Arts and Crafts Commission does not want the Indians to produce that thing they won't allow them to use their trade mark.

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you any evidence that the Arts and Crafts Commission is opposed to the Indians making any kind of Indian art that will assist them in making a living for themselves?

OPPOSED ENTIRELY TO BUREAU CONTROL

Mrs. JEMISON. Our objection goes back to the whole subject of bureau control, as you are dealing with a people who are wards of the Government. This will be used as a club over them, as so many things have.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now you admit that you do not answer my question. I asked if you had any evidence to back up your statement.

Mrs. JEMISON. I have only a statement regarding the Arts and Crafts Commission, of one person regarding that matter. I do not have that statement with me.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then you are willing to tell this committee not to make any appropriation for this Bureau on the strength of one statement of one person.

Mrs. JEMISON. We are opposed to the appropriation of any money for this Commission because as we understand it the Commissioner asked last year for $10,000 for a man to go to Europe to develop a market for this trade, and we believe that the money could have