done up to date in Montana in making a study of the situation, tribe by tribe, both as to their interests and what we think about it. Secondly, if we should decide I will repeat this if we should decide to make recommendations to either include all or part of the tribes, some of which may oppose inclusion, I think they should have an opportunity to either submit a brief or appear in behalf of their interest on it to present their own case. Regarding California, we are unqualifiedly favorable to the passage of a bill which would cover the State as a whole for the reason that we have discussed the matter. I have discussed it personally with a large group of the Mission Indians in southern California. I have not talked with the Yuma group about it. I discussed it personally with a group of northern California Indians, including Hoopa, in November a year ago, which is the largest tribal group we have there, and I found no exception in California of any moment against inclusion of the whole State. We have a peculiar situation in California in that there are 115 bands and groups, small rancherias scattered here and there all over the State with a great deal of intercommunication between those local units and the outside, and the enforcement problem at the reservation level is an almost impossible situation. So, I don't think there is any contention. Consequently, on the California bill, as indicated in our report this morning if I might take that one up first, because I think it would make it easier to discuss the other one- -we would recommend that the bill be passed with amendments, and the amendment in essence would be the substitution of the bill which we have drawn up within the Department, which would accomplish, we believe, the intended objective a little more satisfactorily than the H. R. 3624; and, rather than to go into the detail of that just for California, I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, because I have the draftsman with me, to have Mr. Sigler, who had devoted a great deal of time to this phase of the program, to run through the proposals for California and which at the same time would be giving to you our proposal for any State law-andorder bill that would be proposed that would tie into this codification that we have mentioned. Mr. POULSON. I would like to say that I am heartily in accord with Mr. Myer's idea that this whole subject should be incorporated in one bill. We might work out, for instance, something like a California bill; but, noting the problem that you have to confront when you put this legislation through, it would be much better to have it in one bill and have more force back of it. Mr. MYER. We have no objection to that. As a matter of fact, it may be desirable. Mr. POULSON. I would be very glad, after that is included, to incorporate it in the general bill, which either you or Mr. D'Ewart would take, and I suggest Mr. D'Ewart, because this has been one of his lifelong ambitions. Mr. MORRIS. Certainly. Certainly he should be the author of it. There is no question about that. Mr. Berry? Mr. BERRY. Might I make a motion that these hearings be printed and we be supplied with printed copies? Mr. MORRIS. I think that is a good suggestion. We will do that. I had intended that all along. Ordinarily we do not, in order to conserve funds. This committee tries to be economical as you know. That is the idea of all of us. We do not ordinarily print our hearings, but on a few of the major cases I think that we should. I think it is economy to do it; and in this instance if there is no objection, I will direct that the record be printed. No objection is heard to the order. All right, Mr. Sigler. We will hear from you. STATEMENT OF LEWIS A. SIGLER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF COUNSEL, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Mr. SIGLER. Mr. Chairman, the substitute bill which is attached to the draft of the California bill, which you have put in the record this morning, follows a pattern that we have used for each of the States that have been under consideration, so what I say about California applies equally to every other State bill that we have submitted to either this committee or the Senate committee. The bill is divided into three parts; not formally, but it treats with three subjects. The first deals with criminal jurisdiction over the areas included within what is called the Indian country. Because it does deal with criminal jurisdiction, it is cast in the form of an amendment to title 18 of the United States Code, which is the title "Crimes and Criminal Procedure." The first section in the bill, or the draft bill, merely adds a new heading to the chapter analysis that deals with Indian affairs. Mr. MYER. Mr. Chairman, I have four or five copies that might be helpful if you could look at them. Mr. SIGLER. The section heading that would be added to the chapter analysis is "State jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the Indian country." Then there would be added the substance of that section, which would be labeled "Section 1161." That section provides [reading]: Each of the States listed in the following table shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country listed opposite the name of the State to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State, and the criminal laws of such State shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State. Then would follow a table consisting of two columns, one column would be a list of States, and opposite that would be a list of the Indian country in that State that would be affected. In the case of California, we would include all Indian country within the State. Just by way of illustration, in the case of Wisconsin we would list the name "Wisconsin," and in the column opposite that name we would list all Indian country within the State except the Menominee Reservation, and we would follow the same pattern for any State where, for good reason, the Indians do not want to come under State law and also have an adequate system of their own. In the case of Montana, as the Commissioner indicated, we are not prepared to indicate whether any or how many reservations should be listed in the exception column. So, the essence of that section is to give the State criminal jurisdiction over all the Indian country in the State, except as noted in the column. Mr. BERRY. How about South Dakota? Mr. SIGLER. Congressman Berry, we have not had South Dakota as a problem before, and we have made no investigation there. We would be very glad to do it, in view of your inclusion of South Dakota in Congressman D'Ewart's amendment, but we haven't done anything up to this point. Mr. MYER. I will talk to you privately about that. Mr. MORRIS. I suggest you have a conference in regard to that matter. Mr. MYER. We will be glad to. Mr. MORRIS. Maybe you can work it out and include that. Mr. MYER. May I say we don't want to discriminate against South Dakota. Mr. MORRIS. I am certain of that. Mr. SIGLER. Then following that part of the section, there would be two more subsections, the first of which would preserve the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to the extent those courts now have jurisdiction, merely as a safeguard to fall back upon in the event there should not be an adequate enforcement of State law. That situation has arisen in one or two instances within comparatively recent times, where the State or county officials for one reason or another were reluctant to enforce State law, and when that happened the use of the Federal system, inadequate as it is, was the only thing that was available. That is purely a precautionary measure, however. Mr. MORRIS. It would really make concurrent jurisdiction. Mr. MORRIS. I think that is very wise, because certainly they should not be deprived of jurisdiction. What we are trying to do is get better law enforcement and certainly if the State for some reason should not act after they are given permission to act certainly there ought not to be any vacuum there. Somebody ought to act, and I can see the wisdom of that. Mr. SIGLER. The third subsection deals with the subject of Indian hunting and fishing rights generally, and it is designed to preserve to the Indians whatever rights with respect to hunting and fishing that they now have. The subsection would read: Nothing in this section shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, community or group, of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal law, treaty or agreement with respect to the ownership or taxation of trust or restricted Indian property, or with respect to hunting, trapping or fishing, or the control, licensing or regulation thereof. That is the substance of the bill that deals with criminal jurisdiction. The next part of the bill deals with the liquor law, the Indian liquor law. I will not read it, but it is intended to make the Federal Indian liquor law inapplicable over all areas over which the States are given jurisdiction, so that the State law will apply, but not any Federal discriminatory law against Indians. The Federal Indian liquor law would not be repealed or made inapplicable with respect to any reservation that is excepted from the State jurisdiction, such as Menominee or Red Lake or any other reservation that is excepted. The reason for that is if the reservation is not subject to State jurisdiction, and you repeal the Federal liquor law, that reservation could then become a haven for bootleggers, if the State happens to be a dry State, or in any event there would be no regulation of liquor traffic, either Federal or State. The third part of the bill deals with the subject of civil jurisdiction, and it is designed to give the States, the courts of the State, the same jurisdiction over civil proceedings and actions between Indians or between one Indian and others that the State has with respect to controversies between non-Indians. That section contains a savings clause, however, indicating that as long as title to Indian property remains in the United States in trust for Indians, the State courts will not have authority in the exercise of civil jurisdiction to take any action that would authorize the alienation, encumberance, or taxation of that property held by the United States in trust, but as soon as the trust status is terminated, then the State jurisdiction automatically attaches. Now, that in substance is the outline. Mr. BERRY. Is that any change from the present law? Mr. SIGLER. There are changes. I can't give you the details about the doubts that have arisen in some areas with respect to civil jurisdiction, but there have been problems, I think involving the authority of State officials to serve subpenas within the boundaries of Indian reservation on trust land, but I am not really prepared to give you the details of that problem. There has been, so far as I know, no objection on the part of any of the Indian groups consulted to the civil jurisdiction provisions. Their objections have gone entirely to criminal jurisdiction on the part of the States. One further comment, and that is, there are on the books now special or separate laws giving jurisdiction to five different States, either with respect to all Indian country or some Indian country within those States. We have recommended that those different laws be brought together and codified in one place in title 18 of the United States Code. That is the bill that Mr. Myer referred to as pending before the Judiciary Committee. The language of our codification bill is identical with the language that is submitted with respect to California, and it is our recommendation that the language of whatever bill your committee decides to report follow the language of the codification bill in order that the legislation, when finally enacted, will go into one section in the code and then as additional States or reservations are ready they can simply be added to the list. Mr. MORRIS. Does that complete your statement? Mr. SIGLER. Yes, sir. Mr. MORRIS. Both of you gentlemen can be back tomorrow? Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Sigler and the Commissioner. Mr. MYER. That is right. Mr. MORRIS. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock in the morning. Mr. MYER. We will take up this same matter in the morning to begin with? Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. We will continue with this matter. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Friday, February 29, 1952.) STATE LEGAL JURISDICTION IN INDIAN COUNTRY FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 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 (chairman) presiding. Mr. MORRIS. Gentlemen, the committee will now come to order. We will proceed with the hearings on the bills which we were considering yesterday. The committee is now considering the three bills, H. R. 459, by Mr. D'Ewart; H. R. 3235, by Mr. D'Ewart; and H. R. 3624, by Mr. Poulson. One of the witnesses had indicated to the Chair that he has an engagement elsewhere some time today and would like to be heard this morning, so I am going to call on Attorney Cohen, to make a statement at this time, in order to accommodate him. Now, ladies and gentlemen, may I make this announcement. Mr. D'Ewart has made a very comprehensive statement in regard to this whole subject matter, particularly laying emphasis upon what is occurring in his own State of Montana, but nevertheless he has covered the whole matter here I think comprehensively and most ably. The Commissioner, and Mr. Sigler of the Department have made their statements and altogether I think that we now have a pretty comprehensive picture of the whole situation. Of course we will have to fill this picture in with a number of details. It is not my purpose in making this announcement to try to persuade anyone to be so brief that he cannot get over his views. We want your views and we welcome your views, regardless of what they are. But I do hope, in view of that fact, that when you appear on the stand today, and appear before the committee, that you will confine your remarks to the pertinent issues here and let us not rehash matters that have been already adequately covered, because our time is of the essence here and I hope that we can get right down to the "meat of the coconut," as the saying is. If you do that, and if we follow that policy, we will get your views more clearly and do a better job towards this legislation, and produce better legislation, than if we make our hearings so voluminous that the central thoughts are lost in a mass of detail. So please remember that, gentlemen, and try to contribute, when you come to the stand, some new ideas. In other words, there is no need of rehashing the material and the information that we have that you and we all agree on. There is no need of coming in and saying it all over again when someone else has already said it. There is no 35 |