STATEMENT OF HON. FRED MARSHALL, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, ON H. R. 459

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. It is my observation that no committee of the Congress is harder working and more sincere in their efforts to assist in solving a problem than this committee. May I also add that the intelligence of members of this committee is of the highest, and when you have a combination of intelligence, sincerity, and industry results gained can only be substantial.

I wish to urge the enactment of H. R. 459, introduced by Congressman D'Ewart of Montana who has long given constructive attention to Indian problems. It is my understanding that in considering this bill some changes and proposed amendments will be considered to perfect the bill; some to be offered by Mr. D'Ewart. I have full confidence that the committee will report out the best possible bill. In my State of Minnesota outstanding work on Indian problems has been done along a research line by a legislative committee known as the legislative research committee with Mr. A. G. Slet vold as chairman. My fellow townsman, Mr. Stanley Holmquist is vice chairman and Mr. Louis Dorweiler, Jr., is secretary. Our former Governor, the Honorable Luther Youngdahl, a well-known authority on law enforcement has urged legislative action and prompted the naming of a committee from a number of States, known as the Governors' Interstate Indian Council.

While law enforcement among Indians on their lands is limited to Federal and tribal authorities, maintenance of law and order usually falls upon local and State authorities in Minnesota. These State and local authorities must attempt to maintain peace without legal jurisdiction. Indian law-enforcement officials are available on only two reservations in Minnesota and since their jurisdiction is limited it contributes to the tangled legal problem of law enforcement among the Indians.

Legal jurisdiction over Indians is a complicated subject. It is governed by - more than 5,000 statutes, almost 400 treaties, and numerous administrative and judicial rulings. Legal jurisdiction governing the Indians are threefold, Federal, State, and the Indian tribes. However, in many instances the tribes have not assumed their responsibilities and the States' authority is limited. In addition to the jurisdiction problem, there is a very real problem of the propriety of one jurisdiction attempting to carry on needed law enforcement in an area where all its actions may be challenged. It can be understood that lack of legal jurisdiction causes a problem in law enforcement. While State law-enforcement officials may sometimes enforce the law it is technically illegal and occasionally defense of an Indian involved in a crime has been predicated on this basis. For example, if an Indian decides that his marital difficulties are insufferable and walks out on his family, there is no legal method of returning him to the reservation to face his family responsibilities. State courts have no legal jurisdiction. According to the Handbook of Federal Indian Law, page 147: Cases involving the responsibility of an Indian man for the support of his wife and children cannot be prosecuted in Federal courts. Fortunately most Indian husbands endeavor to support their families to the best of their ability and only the minority creates this problem. However, for the protection of the majority there should be some legal jursidiction to make the minority assume a responsibility rightfully theirs.

On February 7, 1951, I introduced H. R. 2494, a bill to restrict the application of section 1154 of title 18 of the United States Code relating to the dispensing of intoxicants to Indians as I felt the Indian citizens of the State should be on an equal footing with non-Indian citizens by making them both subject to the same laws. I would suggest that the committee give consideration to including the language of this bill as an amendment to H. R. 459. The bill which I introduced reads as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That except with respect to transactions with the 'Indian country' as defined in section 1151 of title 18 of the United States Code, section 1154 of such title 18 shall not apply in any State or the District of Columbia. or in any Territory or possession of the United States to transactions which are not prohibited by the laws thereof."

At one time the State of Minnesota prohibited the sale of liquor to Indians, however, in 1947, this law was amended so that it is now illegal to sell liquor only to Indians who had "not adopted the language, customs, and habits of civilization." For all practical purposes Indians are permitted to purchase liquor under Minnesota State law. Indians consider the Federal law prohibiting the

sale of liquor to them to be discriminatory and do little if anything to aid in enforcement. It is not difficult for Indians to obtain liquor. In Minnesota only a minor portion of the time of four Federal Government men is spent in the field policing liquor sales to Indians. Many persons contend that if Indians were permitted to purchase liquor like any other individual, the Indian liquor problem would be of little importance. They say that liquor affects the Indian in no worse manner than it affects non-Indian. They contend that if the Indian could purchase it legally, one incentive to excessive drinking would disappear.

A report of the Senate Interim Committee on Indian Affairs of the State of Minnesota states that "for all practical purposes, the Federal law prohibiting the sale of liquor to Indians is unenforceable." As with non-Indians liquor is not a problem among all Indians. Many Indians do not drink and others do not drink to excess and are no problem insofar as liquor is concerned. The executive committee of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe at a meeting held December 15 and 16, 1950, adopted a resolution requesting the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to seek repeal of the Federal Indian liquor law and to seek legislation to confer on the State of Minnesota civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indians and within the Indian country, provided their rights to hunting, fishing, and gathering rice were protected. It is our understanding that amendments to preserve these rights will be offered. Reports we receive would indicate that no particular problems arise in respect to hunting and fishing by Indians. We believe that records would probably show that the number of Indians arrested for violations of game and fish laws is less than that of non-Indians in proportion to population.

Indians are subject to State laws when they are off the reservation lands. Minnesota Indians move about the State at will and are acquainted with the legal requirements of the State. Minnesota Indians have made outstanding progress on the road to eventual assimilation. They live like non-Indians in the same area who are subject to State laws. Some hold public office and many of them vote. The entire law-enforcement problem would be made easier if State laws were applied as proposed by H. R. 459 with amendments. In Minnesota placing all Indians under State laws would be a further step in the process of full assimilation and would still permit an element of self-government. In conclusion, there are few malicious or premeditated crimes among Minnesota Indians but no group of people within the State has as little police protection.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. D'Ewart.

Mr. D'EWART. I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Marshall for coming over this morning. He is a hard working Member of Congress. I know how active he was when he was on this committee. I appreciate his taking the time to come over here. This bill differs in two particulars to the one which you helped us get through the House 2 years ago. The New Mexico provision is taken out and since New Mexico is not within the present bill, that is noncontroversial. The other point that it differs is that we have a referendum in this bill.

Would you like to comment on whether you think your Indians would find that acceptable or not and whether they would favorably adopt this legislation?

Mr. MARSHALL. The gentleman from Montana has brought that up and I have no doubt but what the majority of the Indians in our State are heartily in accord with the referendum and want it to go that way. We do have, not in my district but in Congressman Hagen's district, the Red Lake Agency, which I understand is somewhat opposed. Now it may be that in your deliberations that you may wish to make an exception as far as Red Lake is concerned.

Personally, I regret that they are taking the attitude they are, and personally I hope that they do not press an exemption because I believe in their own welfare and the welfare of the State that they ought to go right along with the rest. Outside of the Red Lake Agency, I do not know of a single instance where there is opposition to the local law enforcement. I think that that is one thing that I had

noticed that you were proposing in that amendment and I think that is extremely fair.

I think it is a matter of bringing about a far better relationship by giving them the chance to decide. I think that is highly commendable.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman Poulson.

Mr. POULSON. No questions.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman McMullen.
Mr. MCMULLEN. No questions.

Mr. HARRISON. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I concur with the statements made by Congressmen D'Ewart and Mr. Marshall. I believe enactment of this law will be beneficial rather than detrimental to the Indians themselves. It will undoubtedly remove a lot of law violations which possibly could be used against the Indians themselves when the times come to give them their freedom.

Also, in my opinion, it would take them out of the class of being people apart and put them back a little closer to the rest of us, which I think most of us have been aiming for. I think that the amendment that Mr. D'Ewart has placed in the bill allowing for referendum by the Indians themselves removes any objection that the Indians might have or should have.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman Poulson?

Mr. POULSON. I would like to reiterate what the others have stated and to compliment my colleague, Mr. Marshall, on his forthright statements and state we do miss him on this committee. However, is it not true, Mr. Marshall, or Fred, that we think as far as discriminations are concerned that this still doesn't go the full limit because they are discriminated against in many other ways?

In other words, they don't have the rights of the full American citizen in the fact that they are not granted the right to purchase alcoholic drinks and as a result are given to such things as you mentioned, canned heat. That is one of the things to consider. Both of us had bills last session and again this session where we cleared up the situation in both ways; not that we are wanting them to get the liquor but the fact is because of these discriminatory laws, they are being, you might say, driven to habits and to a disease that is far worse than anything that we can think about as far as alcoholic beverages. Is that not true?

Mr. MARSHALL. I certainly agree that Indians are no different than any other type of individual, that you create a desire when you set out a certain regulation or law that says you shall not do such and such. We saw during our prohibition era, in our own community, where people who were violently opposed to the use of intoxicants, because a Federal law said "You shall not do such and such," that they drifted away from that sort of thing. I am using a parallel case in connection with our Indians; the fact that the other side of the fence looks the greenest, and the point I want to make and reemphasize is that every Indian who wants intoxicating liquor gets that liquor He gets it because of laws that are not being enforced and he gets the very worst type of intoxicating liquor. He gets the extreme, as we mentioned, in canned heat.

now.

Remove the desire and you remove a lot of the problem of getting that sort of thing.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman Berry?

Mr. BERRY. I would like to add this: I want to compliment both Mr. Marshall and Mr. D'Ewart on this presentation, and I believe this: that South Dakota is probably a proving ground for this bill, Congressman D'Ewart. On my reservation, and I have lived on the reservation of Standing Rock for 23 years, there we have bypassed the law and we have cooperation between the county and State in law enforcement.

Of course, if they take us to the Supreme Court, we are licked, yes, but we do cooperate and I think that the Indian Department will agree that probably there is less trouble on the Standing Rock Reservation, on the South Dakota side at least, of any place in the country so far as law enforcement is concerned. That is, outside of the liquor law. You can't enforce that anywhere.

We have other reservations, where there is no county cooperation whatever, and we have a terrific situation. We had five murders on one in the past 3 years, I think, and no one has been arrested.

I think the situation is a little better there now because they have sent a Government police officer down there, and the tribe is doing a little bit better job of setting up police stations around the reservation, but I wholeheartedly agree with the provisions of this law, and I think with the provision that it shall be left to local option. I can't see why it shouldn't pass.

I want to join with the thinking of Mrs. Bosone on this liquor law. I have no sympathy whatever for the prohibition law that prohibits Indians from getting liquor. I think your bill is a good bill and I want to add this: That the Legislature of the State of South Dakota passed a resolution asking for a Federal law doing exactly the thing that the Marshall bill does, whether it is wise to incorporate it in the D'Ewart bill I don't know, but I do think it should be passed.

Mr. MORRIS. May I add this final word? I was astounded to learn some several years ago that human beings drink canned heat. That was a shocking revelation to me. I am sorry to know that that practice is beginning among the good Indian people in your State and your district; and, if there is some way that we can assist in stamping out that evil, certainly it is our duty to do so.

Mr. BERRY. If the gentleman will yield, not only is canned heat used but on a lot of these reservations you can't put alcohol in your radiator because, if you do and they find out about it, they will drain the radiator and drink it.

Mr. POULSON. Hair tonic went very well,

Mr. MORRIS. That applies to white people as well, people of different nationalities, of course. Lots of people become addicted tothat. It is a serious matter. I don't say it has become a prevalent thing all over the United States. I don't know how prevalent it has become, but the fact that any human being or human beings would indulge in such practices is a serious thing for us to consider.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is serious. However, I would like to make just one other point in connection with Mr. D'Ewart's bill. If you include a provision such as I have inaugurated in my bill, H. R. 2494, or not, the problem that Mr. D'Ewart is attacking in his bill is one which is far reaching; and, if in your wisdom you feel it would be wrong to incorporate it, I, of course, would feel that the committee was taking the proper step.

I am fearful that perhaps in my getting over and talking about canned heat this morning I may have drifted away from the principal parts of Mr. D'Ewart's bill, which are of far-reaching consequence and highly important.

Mr. MORRIS. We thank you again for the splendid contribution you have made to our hearing, Congressman Marshall.

Now, I think all of us would be very interested to hear from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at this point and get the viewpoint of the Department. Commissioner Myer, we will be happy to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF DILLON S. MYER, COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Mr. MYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say first that I see absolutely no difference in objective, and perhaps only a very small difference in procedure, and I think I can point that out as far as the departmental recommendations are concerned.

I would like first to state our general position and the general problem as we see it regarding law and order.

There is no doubt but what it is one of the most difficult problems that face the Department, the States, the Indians, and the local governments, among the problems we are dealing with in Indian country. The appropriations for law enforcement at the Federal level have been much too limited, but I have said a number of times recently that even if we had a regiment or division of police to put out in these areas we still would not get a good job of enforcement if we weren't able to secure the support of the Indians themselves, of the local law-enforcement people, and the local citizenry in wanting to have a good job done.

Now, our position has been this: We believe that the State should take over the responsibility for law enforcement just as fast as it is possible and feasible. We have adopted this approach. We have taken up with the Indians themselves and a number of the States, we have talked with the Governor and the law-enforcement officials in a number of States, and we now have before the Congress, either the Senate or the House, or will have soon if they are not already here, law-and-order bills for Oregon, Washington, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and a report is in process on Montana, which has not been completed. I believe that the Bureau of the Budget has approved a report on each of these other States, and some of them have gone to the Senate and some of them have come here and some are still in process, but they have been approved.

Briefly, we have taken this position: That we should not make recommendations without consulting with the Indians, because we feel that they have a point of view and there is a varying situation and we have done that in every one of the States in which we have made a report.

In the State of California, for example, we have reported a bill without exception that State law-and-order program should be taken over by the States. In the case I think of all of the other States, there has been one or two or three exceptions, because the Indians themselves are doing a reasonably adequate job and at this time they have asked not to be included. In the State of Oregon, Warm Springs