As evidenced by the data submitted by the Commissioners, the Quechans were not advised of any intention of the Commissioners to take from them virtually their entire Reservation. Under oath this statement was made:

"Q Did Bill Mojave a part-time interpreter_7

say that under the agreement the Indians would give up
all the land that was not allotted?

"A No.

"Q Did anybody else say anything about that?
"A Not that I know of." 8/

It is reported by the Commissioners that on Friday, November 24, 1893, the Quechan Indian Council met with the Commission. The alleged

official reporter, Bill Mojave, was not present. As a consequence the proceedings were interpreted to the Indians from English to Spanish and from Spanish to Indian there was a great deal lost by the Quechans in the interpretation. This recitation from the report of the November 24, 1893 meeting sets out the misrepresentation to the Indians in regard to the soon-to-be-defunct Colorado River Irrigation Company: "The Indians were asked if they knew about the ditch or Canal Company going to put a ditch through their reservation and that it was the purpose to allot them lands below the ditch giving to every Indian his own land." 9/ The Chief of the Quechans answered that he knew of the plans to construct the Colorado River Irrigation Company canal but stated he wanted to know: "*** how soon they are going to work on it the canal and when they are going to have it finished." To that inquiry the Commissioners advised the Chief through English, Spanish and Indian that he was informed that: "* * * work would be commenced about the first of December and finished as quickly as circumstances would admit. The interpreter did so and Chief Palma said he understands it and is satisfied."

That the Commissioners knew they were not telling the Quechans the
truth in regard to the initiation of construction of the canal is
evident from this statement from their official report dated
January 24, 1894, two months after the assurances given the Indians:

8/ Before the Indian Claims Commission of the United States, Docket

No. 320; Deposition of Patrick Miguel, Jack Kelly, John Cash, and Steven Kelly, taken at Fort Yuma, California, on Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and 29th days of November, 1951, page 8, lines 18-22.

9/ Report on Quechan Indian Council meeting on November 24, 1893, page 1.

"In this connection the proposed route of the fictitious canal never to be built_/ it may be observed that the act granting the right of way to the Colorado River Irrigating Company made no provision as to the time when work was to begin on their projected canal. The Commission is of the opinion that there should have been some limit in this respect in that act, ***." 10/

It is appropriate at this juncture to reiterate that the Commissioners were representing the Trustee United States to the Quechan Indians; that the Commission owed to the Indians the highest degree of fidelity, care and skill in the negotiations with them; that the Indians who could neither read nor write nor understand English, were not represented by counsel; that to entice the Indians to agree to the "cession" of some of their lands, the entire "sell" made to the Indians was that their lands would be irrigated; to state to the Indians that the Colorado River Irrigation Company would commence construction of the canal on December 1, 1894, knowing that there was no time prescribed for starting the work, is representative of the fraudulent course of conduct adhered to by the Commission appointed to procure the cession from the Indians. That the canal was never to be constructed and

none of the other features of the proposed agreement were to be fulfilled as provided, discloses the generally reprehensible course of conduct of the officials involved and why the present use and occupancy by agents purporting to represent the United States is unconscionable.

In keeping with the course of conduct used to defraud the Indians
of their properties were the false representations as to the lands to
be allotted and to be "ceded":

"The interpreter was told to tell the Indians that
it was the purpose if they desired it to allot them lands
below the ditch so that they could get water on it,
instead of waiting for the river to overflow, and that
each one would own his own farm and they were told to
indicate how many acres each wanted." 11/

Continuing, the report had this additional comment:

"The interpreter was then told to explain to the Indians
that the Indians would only require a portion of the
lands below the ditch and they were asked if they were
willing that the remainder of the lands be ceded to the
Government for their benefit and sold the money to be
used to help them on their new farms, to pay water
rents, buy seeds to educate their children." 12/

10/ Report of Commission dated January 24, 1894, page 9, last paragraph. 11/ Report on Quechan Indian Council meeting on November 24, 1893, page 2. 12/ Report on Quechan Indian Council meeting on November 24, 1893, page 3.

Thus it is clear the Commissioners in their statement to the Quechans
allude only to lands below the never-to-be-constructed canal. No
mention was made of the alleged "cession" of all of the lands of the
Reservation totaling thousands of acres. That limited cession is,
of course, in keeping with the recitations contained in the opening
sentence of the formal report of the Commission dated January 24,
1894, which declares:

"The Commissioners appointed by you to negotiate with the Yuma Indians in California, for the cession to the United States of portions of their reservation under the provision of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1893, (27 Stats., 612) now have the honor to report an agreement with said Indians, which is enclosed herewith." (Emphasis supplied)

Want of knowledge on the part of the Quechans confronted by the Commissioners is well demonstrated by these facts set forth in the first report of the Commission:

"Commissioner Brady then, with Agent Estudillo measured off an acre of land on the parade ground and showed the Chief and Indians what an acre of land is and they were asked if they fully understood it to which they replied that they did." 13/

The Indians were then asked:

"* to submit an offer of ten acres to each head
of the family and five acres to each child under
18 years of age and ask them if they would be satis-
fied with that quantity of land. The question was
put to a vote after being fully explained and dis-
cussed, and they all said they were satisfied." 14/

As set forth above, witnesses to the conduct of the Commissioners stated under oath that the Indians were not told that they would give up all the lands which were not allotted:

"Q Do you remember what was said by the Commissioner 7 on the second day_7.

"A The second day the same thing occurred only the old man stood on a chair and held up the proposed

Agreement in his hand and said the Agreement is going

13/ Report on Quechan Indian Council meeting on November 24, 1893, page 2. 14/ Report on Quechan Indian Council meeting on November 24, 1893, page 3.

to cut up your land into five-acre pieces and each
man, woman and child will get five acres of land, free
water will be given you, implements will be given you,
seed will be given you, the land will be leveled,
brush cleared, the land leveled and all you have to
do is go out and farm it.

"Q Did he say who was going to pay for all of that?
"A The government was going to pay for all of that." 15/

In keeping with the sworn statements set forth above, this statement, likewise under oath, was made in regard to the proposition submitted to the Indians by the Commissioner who addressed them:

"Q Did he say the Indians were to give up the rest of their reservation and that it was going to be public land?

"A No, not a word along that line." 16/

For a trustee to confront its beneficiary, an illiterate people with no knowledge of the import of their acts, with the selection of the lands required to support a family, is in itself violative of the trust. To practice intentional deception as to the consequences of their acts and the devastation which befell the Quechans then and now, is despicable. As stated above, it is the intentional deception with the objective of depriving the Quechans of their lands, which is fraudulent per se. That fraud was insufficient, became clear to the Commissioners as will be reviewed. Hence they added to their fraudulent acts the elements of coercion and duress in their "negotiations" with the Quechans.

(2) Coercion and duress were practiced upon the Quechans,
in addition to the deception which constituted fraud

Cryptic reporting is very much a part of the deception practiced upon the Quechans to defraud them of a large proportion of their Reservation as established by the Executive Order of 1884. Only mention of the jailing of Quechan leaders who resisted the deception practiced by the Commissioners upon them, is contained in this statement from the official report:

15/

"Ex-Chief Miguel and eight Yuma Indians were in
jail

the Los Angelos gaet, and, as he had formerly been Chief
of the Indians and at the present time a leader of a

Before the Indian Claims Commission Of The United States, Docket No. 320; Deposition of Patrick Miguel, Jack Kelly, John Cash, and Steven Kelly, taken at Fort Yuma, California, on Wednesday and Thursday, the 28th and 29th days of November, 1951, page 7, lines 10-20. 16/

Before tl. Indian Claims Commission Of The United States, Docket
No. 320; Deposition of Patrick Miguel, etc., page 7, lines 21-23.

faction of them, the Commission thought it but proper
to visit him and get his views. Walter Averspun, his
jail

Interpreter, who is also in gaek told the ex-Chief and
the other Indians of the object of the visit of the
Commission and asked them their wishes in regard to
taking their land in allotments. They all were in favor
of doing so. They also said they knew of the proposed
canal and hoped it would soon be built.

"Of all the known male adult Indians a total of 251, jail

203 signed the agreement; those in gael expressed their satisfaction with its terms, and the Commission believes that of the remaining 40, many of whom are at work off the reservation, nearly all would have signed had they been present." 17/

What the report did not, of course, state was that the Quechans who resisted the seizure of their land by fraud, duress, and coercion as practiced by the Commissioners, were whipped with black snakes and jailed in Los Angeles. Supporting the Commissioners' report that "Ex-Chief Miguel" who had opposed the activities of the Colorado River Irrigation Company was in jail, is a copy of a statement dated October 7, 1935, in the files of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that the signer with four others had been whipped and that eight of the Indians, including Ex-Chief Miguel - had been sent to jail in Los Angeles. The statement refers to: Chief Miguel's resistance to the entry upon the Reservation by representatives of the Colorado River Irrigation Company, meetings and the employment of a lawyer named George M. Knight to assist the Indians; the ordered arrest and whipping of the writer of the statement at the direction of Mother O'Neil, stated to be superintendent at the time; the brutal nature of the whipping of those who resisted the activities of the Colorado River Irrigation Company, which, as reviewed above, instigated the seizure of the Indian lands by securing the appointment of the Commissioners. 18/

Corroborating the report of the meeting by the Commissioners in the Los Angeles jail with "Ex-Chief Miguel and eight Yuma Indians" is this excerpt from the statement:

17/

18/

"The Judge said that tomorrow I would be taken to Los
Angeles to the County jail. They took me and locked

Report of the Commission dated January 24, 1894, pages 5, 6.
Report "Yuma Indian Reservation Re: Agreement of 1893,
Yuma, Arizona - Oct. 7, 1935, The agreement of 1893 and how it
was made." Signed, Walter Scott.