STATE LEGAL JURISDICTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Toby Morris, presiding Mr. MORRIS. The committee will now come to order. We will proIceed with the business at hand.

Let the record show that without objection the committee will now consider H. R. 459, a bill to confer jurisdiction on the several States over offenses committed by or against Indians within Indian country, and H. R. 3235, a bill to confer jurisdiction on the State of Montana with respect to offenses committed within Indian country within such State, and H. R. 3624, a bill to confer jurisdiction on the State of California with respect to offenses committed on Indian reservations within such State.

(The bills referred to are as follows:)

[H. R. 459, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To confer jurisdiction on the several States over offenses committed by or against Indians within Indian country

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That jurisdiction is hereby conferred on each State over offenses committed by or against Indians within Indian country or parts thereof within such State, to the same extent as such State has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within such State, and the criminal laws of such State shall have the same force and effect within Indian country or parts thereof within such State as they have elsewhere within such State.

SEC. 2. Each State may authorize any appropriate officer of such State or of any political subdivision thereof to enter upon any Indian country or part thereof within such State for the purpose of enforcing the criminal laws of such State. SEC. 3. Nothing contained in this Act shall deprive the United States of jurisdiction over offenses defined by the laws of the United States committed by or against Indians within Indian country. Nothing contained in this Act shall deprive any Indian governing body of jurisdiction over offenses defined by the laws of such body, except that where such body has custody of a person charged with an offense against a criminal law of a State, such body shall relinquish custody of such person to any appropriate official of such State or of any political subdivision thereof when requested to do so by such official.

SEC. 4. This Act shall be applicable only to jurisdictions and Indian reservations wherein Indians within the reservation are, under State law, notwithstanding their special status as wards of the Government, entitled to the right to vote in State and county elections.

[H. R. 3235, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To confer jurisdiction on the State of Montana with respect to offenses committed within Indian country within such State

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Montana shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians within Indian country or parts

1

thereof within the State of Montana to the same extent as such State has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State as defined by the laws of the State: Provided, That nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to deprive any Indian tribe, band, or community, or members thereof, of hunting and fishing rights as guaranteed them by agreement, treaty, or custom, nor require them to obtain State fish and game licenses for the exercise of such rights.

[H. R. 3624, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To confer jurisdiction on the State of California with respect to offenses committed on Indian reservations within such State

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations within the State of California to the same extent as the courts of the State have jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State as defined by the laws of the State: Provided, That nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to deprive any Indian tribe, band, or community, or members thereof, hunting and fishing rights as guaranteed them by agreement, treaty, or custom, nor require them to obtain State fish and game licenses for the exercise of such rights.

Mr. MORRIS. Without objection we will hear all these bills at the same time; that is to say, we will consider all three bills for the reason that they all involve substantially the same subject matter, and in ,order to conserve the time of the committee, and of those who are going to appear, I think it better order that we consider all of the bills at one time. Any witness or any person appearing to make a statement should refer to the particular bill that they are interested in or the particular bills, and make such comment as they care to make in regard to any individual bill and obviously, or two, or all three if they care to.

Now, Congressman D'Ewart, you are the author of the first two bills that were called and it is the policy of this committee to accord the privilege to the author of a bill, especially where such author is a member of our own committee, the privilege of calling witnesses according to the desire and wish of the author.

We have with us this morning Congressman Horan, who has other committee duties and other business to attend to, and I am wondering, Congressman D'Ewart, would it be satisfactory that we hear Congressman Horan first, in order that he might go to other duties?

Is that satisfactory?

Mr. D'EWART. Yes.

Mr. MORRIS. You will have to be with us anyway through the day. If it is satisfactory we will call Mr. Horan.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALT HORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. HORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you this morning. I confess I am no deep student of this particular set of bills which are before you but it is my understanding that they have been inspired by certain reservations where difficulties in maintaining the proper law and order on those reservations has occurred and, as a consequence, to simplify it, it has been suggested that maintenance of law and order

be allowed the prerogative of the State in which the reservation is located,

When I was made aware of these bills, H. R. 3235 and H. R. 459, both of which are authored by my colleague from Montana, Mr. D'Ewart, I did make inquiry with my principal reservation and I have here a letter which I requested from the supervisor, or superintendent of the Colville Indian Agency located at Nespelem, Wash. In this letter which I would like to submit for the record-it is only a page and a fraction-he outlines the fact that the Colville Indian Reservation, consisting of some 15 confederated tribes, are not in favor of these bills for the simple reason that they are working on their own law-and-order codes on their reservation, which is well organized and has population enough to sustain an operation of law and order by themselves on their reservation. They are now working on a code which they expect to go into on April 11 to 15, their next tribal council meetings, at that time. Therefore they would like to maintain their own autonomy.

Now, my reason for appreciating this opportunity to appear before you is that I have one smaller reservation and one very, very small reservation also in my district and it is my understanding that they might favor this sort of a move, providing their fishing and hunting rights are protected.

I also understand that the coastal Indians-and we have quite a number of them in the Puget Sound and lower southwestern Washington areas—may be in favor of this sort of legislation. I do not know what the attitude of the Yakima tribes-and they have a considerable reservation-is. I have made inquiry with Congressman Hal Holmes' office, and they are checking on that to find out their attitude.

My reason for outlining this, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: If we are to look forward-and I think all of us are-to the time when we will completely liberate the Indians and remove them from any suspicion of being wards of the Government, we cannot pass up any opportunity to maintain autonomy on the reservations, set aside by treaty and by law to them.

I am very happy that we have four members of the Colville confederated tribes here today who at some later time when you can work them into your hearings, can outline to you their desire for and the things that they are doing to develop their own law-and-order code. I would be remiss, I think, and derelict in my duty to the Indian tribes if I did not encourage and protect them in the right to develop their own rights and responsibilities regarding law and order. I believe that is all I have to say.

If I may, I could answer some questions, perhaps.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman D'Ewart, do you have any questions? Mr. D'EWART. I would say in answer to Walt Horan that a year ago Senator Cain introduced a bill almost identical to 459 before the committee today, and he has been invited to appear in behalf of the legislation.

He also extended his remarks in the record at length a year ago and they are available in the Congressional Record. He indicated strong support for legislation similar to this. I have notified him and he stated he would appear if it was possible for him to appear. For that reason I have included the State of Washington in this bill. I

have no objection at all to eliminating it if that is the desire of you and Senator Cain. However, Senator Cain did have a very similar bill. Mr. HORAN. I understand.

The confederated tribes, I understand, are not in favor of that legislation. Apparently it was introduced without consulting them. You can check on that. I don't know. However, since they have voiced opposition and since they have a high regard for the efforts they are making to really maintain autonomous and a democratic system of law and order and progress on their reservation I have no recourse but to defend them in that right and I feel that therefore perhaps we should look for flexibility in this type of legislation that would permit of the operation of the resolutions or bills of this nature in certain sections where it is asked for and is agreed to and to eliminate it in other areas where the possibilities of autonomy are present. Mr. D'EWART. Our proposal, of course, is only permissory. It is not mandatory.

it.

Mr. HORAN. You have made that very plain to me. I do appreciate

Mr. MORRIS. Any other questions, gentlemen, and members of the committee?

Mr. MCMULLEN. I would like to ask a question off the record. (Off the record.)

Mr. MORRIS. We are happy to have you with us, Congressman Horan, and we shall be happy to hear your constituents whom you have indicated would like to be heard just as soon as we possibly can. Mr. HORAN. The clerk has their names.

I would like to submit this for the record. (The information is as follows:)

Hon. WALT HORAN,

Member of Congress,

House of Representatives,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Washington, D. C.

OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,

COLVILLE INDIAN AGENCY, Nespelem, Wash., February 12, 1952.

DEAR MR. HORAN: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 7, 1952, with which you enclosed copy of H. R. 3235. This bill would confer jurisdiction on the State of Montana with respect to offenses committed within Indian country within such State. You request that you be advised of the reaction of the tribal council to this legislation.

The Colville Business Council has recently requested authority for a delegation to proceed to Washington, D. C. On their agenda of topics to be discussed there is an item of law and order. The following is a quotation from the agenda. "We will also voice our opposition to any movement which would confer lawand-order jurisdiction to the State of Washington for the purpose of maintaining law and order on Indian reservations. We will oppose enactment of legislation similar to H. R. 459 (D'Ewart, Montana), H. R. 1551 (O'Konski, Wisconsin), S. 1219 (Thye, Minnesota), S. 956 (Butler, Nebraska), H. R. 3235 (D'Ewart, Montana), and H. R. 4546 (Berry, South Dakota). We oppose any controls, especially those of a unilateral nature, that would confer jurisdiction to the States to handle our law-and-order problems, education, medical attention, and other services whereby the Federal Government would pay the bill. Most of these bills do not provide for local option and there is no recourse when unilateral imposition of controls are advocated in legislation.'

The business council is currently considering the adoption of a law-and-order Icode of the confederated tribes of the Colville Reservation. Action is expected on the proposed code at the next quarterly meeting to be held April 10–11, 1952. They hope that the adoption of such a code will preclude action to turn jurisdiction over to the State of Washington. They definitely oppose such action.

On the other hand, it is believed that the Indians of the Spokane Reservation would give favorable consideration to turning jurisdiction over to the State, provided the same protection is afforded their hunting and fishing rights as is contained in H. R. 3235. They have been approached on the subject, and their reaction has been favorable.

Your continued interest in the affairs of the Colville and Spokane Indians is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

FLOYD H. PHILLIPS, Superintendent.

Mr. MORRIS. I would like to say on behalf of Congressman Horan and to his constituents, and I say this in absolute sincerity, Congressman Horan has been as diligent as any man in this Congress, in my opinion, in looking after the welfare of his Indian constituents and other constituents. He has appeared before this committee on many occasions and he has diligently worked hard, in my judgment, in the best interests of the people that he represents.

Mr. HORAN. We have some mighty fine Indians, Mr. Chairman, and I want them to be full citizens at some future date, and believe me, in that direction, I am cooperating to the fullest extent possible.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. D'Ewart, we will be happy to hear from you now. Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a statement in regard to H. R. 459 and I ask that the record show that I have given this statement in full, although in the interest of time I may skip certain sections of it.

Mr. MORRIS. All right.

Mr. D'EWART. I will also ask permission to revise and to extend my remarks.

Mr. MORRIS. Without objection, it is so ordered.

STATEMENT OF HON. WESLEY A. D'EWART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. D'EWART. Mr. Chairman, we have before us today for our consideration H. R. 459, introduced by me, that proposes to confer jurisdiction on the several States over offenses committed by or against Indians within Indian country.

At the proper time I propose to offer three amendments:

The first will limit the bill to those States whose Members of Congress have asked to be included; the second will permit the Indians themselves to vote acceptance of the act before it becomes effective on the respective reservations, and the third will preserving hunting and fishing rights.

I believe these three amendments will overcome the major objections of the Department of the Interior as set forth in the Assistant Secretary of the Interior's letter of January 10, 1952.

First, let us consider the need for this legislation:

By act of Congress, Indian reservations and other lands defined as "Indian country" are legal "no-man's lands" for State law-enforcement authorities. Without jurisdiction in restricted lands, State officers cannot keep the peace by proper enforcement of law.

In my files are hundreds of letters from worried individuals telling of increasing crime, bootlegging, and drinking in Indian country. At its annual convention held in Great Falls, Mont., on August 12, 13, and 14, 1949, the Montana Sheriff's and Peace Officers Association adopted the following resolution [reading]: