I would like to agree on one point. I think there has been oversupervision, and I think that in many areas there is oversupervision now. But I violently differ with some of Mr. Cohen's points of view as to how we can change that situation and how we go about removing supervision. I just might say that I do not agree because a referendum provision is not recommended by us that we are cutting out the educational process. We have been going to these tribal groups. Many of them have called general meetings to discuss this question before they have acted themselves and I just do not agree with that point of view.

Mr. MORRIS. Whether your point of view is correct or not, Mr. Commissioner, or whether your approach to the problem is correct or not, will you state to the committee that it is your plan and program to obtain the thinking of the Indians in regard to the matter by some process before you reach such legislation?

Mr. MYER. I stated that quite clearly yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat it. It has been our approach; it will continue to be our approach, as long as I am Commissioner.

I think I have two other comments regarding the testimony that has been given.

I have heard the implication of the charge across the country in half a dozen reservations that I am holding up the liquor bottle in order to get certain laws passed.

I resent that implication. I have the feeling that that has been passed around, from one reservation to another, not by Indians, but perhaps by others; and frankly, I have the feeling that Mr. Cohen may have had a part in passing that around.

I want to make it as clear as I know how, for this record, that I am not in the business of trading liquor or anything else with the Indians of the United States in order to get them to agree to something that I may want to do.

Mr. POULSON. On that point, would you say that at the present time most of them are getting liquor if they really want it?

Mr. MYER. I would say there is not any doubt about it, but that they are paying a much higher price than other people are paying. I want to go on record that I am opposed to Federal prohibition of liquor. I have said so generally. I also want to point out that I think they may arrive sooner on an approach on a State by State basis rather than on the basis of general repeal, because of a reluctance to vote on a question that is still an issue.

But I want to repeat that I have not been doing any trading. I am not in the habit of going out and indulging in that kind of practice. We try to deal across the board with everybody-and certainly with the Indians of this country, with whom we are trying to work on a basis of respect and understanding.

Now, I think that touches most of the points. Mr. Sigler may have something in his notes and I have asked him to clear up the record on any points which he feels should be cleared up regarding the legal interpretations.

Mr. MORRIS. All right, Mr. Sigler.

Mr. SIGLER. Mr. Chairman, there are only a few comments that I think need to be added, because the Commissioner has covered most of them in considerable detail.

I want to say the Bureau representatives said nothing in this hearing yesterday, and so far as I am aware, they have never indicated that we believe the State health laws do not apply on Indian reservations. Any statements to that effect in this hearing yesterday were not made by Bureau representatives.

Mr. D'EWART. I would assume the responsibility for that on the statement of the health officer for the county of Big Horn, whose letter I quoted.

Mr. SIGLER. I realize that, Congressman D'Ewart. The point I am making is that this is one of several statements imputed to the Bureau which I think Mr. Cohen should have known were not made in the testimony yesterday.

A second one I want to make is that Mr. Cohen indicated that the Bureau had represented that this is a no-man's land in law enforcement, and that State laws do not generally apply on Indian reservations.

That is a subject which is very complicated and detailed. I think that all I would like to do is call your attention to the fact that the written recommendation signed by the Assistant Secretary addressed to your committee represents the opinion of the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior, and to the extent that there is any difference between the views expressed in that memorandum and the views expressed by Mr. Cohen; it is a difference of opinion between him and the top legal officer of the Department.

Mr. Cohen represented or indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs had unjustly criticized the decision of the Montana Supreme Court. To the best of my knowledge, during the testimony yesterday, there was no criticism by the Bureau representatives of that supreme court decision. There was a reference to it without any attempt to evaluate the decision at all.

One final point, and that is on the question of the relationship of the referendum procedure to the process of self-government by the Indians. I would like to express my own opinion that a referendum procedure is not an essential part of the self-government process. It may or may not be. But it very frequently happens that during referendum votes the issue is not thoroughly discussed. It is frequently impossible to get even 20 percent of the Indians to come and vote.

On the contrary, the approach recommended by the Bureau representatives is that the elected tribal representatives, who presumably know more about the business of the tribe than the rank and file, are in a position to discuss the merits of the proposal to subject the Indian reservation to State jurisdiction, and those tribal representatives are speaking for the Indians they represent.

I do not want to urge dogmatically that this is the only approach but I do want to suggest that it is a part of the self-government system for the elected representatives to speak for the group.

Mr. D'EWART. Would you yield on that point.

Mr. SIGLER. Yes.

Mr. D'EWART. I think you know a similar bill passed through the House, through the committee, and to the Senate floor, and was objected to by the Bureau on the ground that it did not have a referendum.

Mr. SIGLER. That bill would subject the Indian to State jurisdiction without any consultation process at all.

We first go to the reservation and discuss it. That element was not present in the bill to which you refer.

Mr. MYER. That is the reason, Mr. D'Ewart.

Mr. SIGLER. I think the issue is whether it is better to go to the Indians in advance to obtain their views in consultation and discussion with the tribal leaders and report the results to your committee, or to reverse the process and have this committee pass the legislation which depends for its effectiveness on referendums of the entire Indian population. That process does not cover, by the way, the contingency referred to yesterday that there may be serious lack of law enforcement which the Indians are unwilling to handle and yet which they will refuse to permit the State to handle. I think that leaves a no-man's land.

Mr. MORRIS. Are there any other questions? I think we have covered the matter very fully and taken a lot of time. I do not want to cut any one off from any further questions they might have.

If not, we will proceed.

(The following statement was presented for the record at the request of Commissioner Myer:)

STATEMENT BY LEWIS A. SIGLER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF COUNSEL, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, REGARDING H. R. 6035

Felix S. Cohen has written and circulated among Indians and non-Indians a shocking memorandum regarding H. R. 6035. This statement will show exactly what the bill would do, and how Mr. Cohen has misrepresented what the bill would do. The bill was intended to provide the law enforcement officers of the Bureau of Indian Affairs with the types of powers held by policemen in an ordinary American community-powers which they now lack and need for self-protection.

What the bill would actually do

The Department's draft bill would amend section 3055 of title 18, United States Code, to read as follows:

"Special law-enforcement officers of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and their deputies, may carry firearms and may make searches and seizures permitted by law for the violation of any Federal law or regulation specifically applicable to Indians or their restricted or trust property. Such officers and their deputies may make arrests without warrant for any violation of such laws or regulations that has been committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony, may execute all warrants of arrest and other lawful precepts issued under the authority of the United States, and may command all necessary assistance in the execution of their duties."

The bill, which was introduced in the Senate as S. 2543 and in the House as H. R. 6035, has two purposes. The first is to correct an omission that occurred when title 18 of the United States Cade was revised and enacted into law in 1948. The second is to broaden the law as it existed prior to 1948 so that it will not be restricted to violations of the Indian liquor law but will cover violations of all criminal laws and regulations specifically applicable to Indians and their trust property. Each of these purposes needs brief explanation.

In 1907 Congress authorized the special agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and his deputies to make searches and seizures in connection with the enforcement of the Indian liquor law (25 U. S. C. 248), and in 1912 Congress gave to the chief special officer for the suppression of liquor traffic among Indians and his deputies certain powers conferred on United States marshals and their deputies (24 U. S. C. 250). When title 18 of the United States Code was revised and enacted into law in 1948, not all the authority contained in the earlier laws was included in the revised section 3055 and no reasons were given by the codifiers for the omission, which was probably inadvertent. One purpose of the proposed bill is to correct this deficiency.

The second purpose of the bill is to overcome a serious handicap under which the Bureau's law-enforcement officers now operate in the performance of their

duties. At the present time a small number of special law-enforcement officers of the Bureau (approximately one-third of them Indians), together with a few tribal policemen, are the only officers available in large areas of Indian country for the enforcement of law and order. Because the Indians in many cases are not subject to State criminal jurisdiction, law and order must be maintained by these special officers working through the Federal courts or tribal courts. The law and order code they enforce is embodied partly in statutes and partly in regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. If they are to function effectively, they need the authority ordinarily conferred on county sheriffs and United States marshals.

The law enforcement officers of the Bureau work alone most of the time in isolated areas far from centers of population and their work is dangerous. Frequently the violators with whom they must deal are armed. In order to protect themselves and carry out their duties adequately, they need to be provided with the kind of authority which is possessed by other similar law-enforcement officials of the Federal, State and local governments.

This is just what the bill would do. Under its provisions the powers conferred upon the Bureau's law-enforcement officers are virtually identical with those now held by United States marshals. The principal difference is that the powers of the Bureau's law-enforcement officers would be limited to offenses committed under Federal laws and regulations applying specifically to Indians. What Mr. Cohen falsely claims the bill would do

In order that there may be no misunderstanding regarding the nature and seriousness of Mr. Cohen's misrepresentations, they are listed and corrected here. 1. Mr. Cohen said that the Department's bill would authorize Bureau employees to shoot Indians. He first made the statement without qualification, implying that Bureau employees could go out at will and shoot Indians on sight. He later repeated the statement and added that the bill was intended to authorize Bureau employees to shoot down Indians who refuse to obey illegal and unconstitutional regulations. This is a false and malicious statement. The authorization to carry firearms is not an authorization to shoot Indians. City policemen, county sheriffs, and State highway patrolmen are authorized to carry firearms, but that does not mean they are authorized to shoot down anyone who violates the law. No policeman has the authority to shoot a citizen or any other person merely because that person is charged with violating the law. Under our American system of justice no person charged with committing a crime can be punished without first being properly arrested, arraigned, and given a fair and impartial trial before a court of law.

The authorization of a policeman to use his gun when making an arrest is severely limited by law, and the special law enforcement officers of the Bureau would be given no greater authority to shoot than the ordinary policeman has. 2. Mr. Cohen said that under the language of the Department's bill any violation of any Indian Bureau regulation is treated as a crime and any Indian who violates such a regulation is subject to imprisonment.

The reference in the Department's recommended bill to violations of regulations as distinguished from laws is due to the fact that on some reservations the only Indian courts that are functioning are operating under regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and the criminal sanctions enforced are prescribed only by regulations of the Secretary. However, the bill does not authorize the imprisonment of anyone for any reason. An Indian may be imprisoned for violating a regulation only if imprisonment is authorized by some other provision of law. No regulation issued by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, area directors of the Bureau, or any other Bureau employee is subject to enforcement by imprisonment of the person who violates it. The principal regulation of the Secretary that provides for a penalty of imprisonment is the regulation relating to the maintenance of law and order through the courts of Indian offenses, which is contained in 25 Court of Federal Regulations 161, and the penalty is prescribed under existing statutory authority.

3. Mr. Cohen said that under the language of the Department's bill an Indian who violates any Bureau regulation would be subject to search and seizure. That is not true and the falseress of the statement appears from a simple reading of the bill. The bill clearly provides that special law enforcement officers of the Bureau may make searches and seizures only when permitted by law. Unless such searches and seizures are permitted by some other law they would not be permitted by this bill.

4. Mr. Cohen said that under the language of the Department's bill an Indian who violates any Bureau regulation would be subject to arrest. He referred specifically to regulations relating to leasing land held in trust, cutting timber on

such land, and spending money held in trust. In the first place, these regulations are issued by the Secretary of the Interior, not by the Bureau. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has no general authority to issue such regulations. More importantly, however, no regulations of this character provide for a criminal penalty of fine or imprisonment, and the bill obviously is not intended and could not conceivably be construed to authorize arrests for violating regulations of that type. An arrest would be meaningless because the violation is not subject to judicial trial or punishment. As noted under 'paragraph 2 above, the regulations covered by the bill are the regulations contained in 25 Court of Federal Regulations 161, which provide for the punishment of certain offenses through courts of Indian offenses.

5. Mr. Cohen said that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs claims a plenary power to control the conduct of all Indians, on or off Indian reservations, and that the power is claimed under a recent solicitor's ruling. Both statements are unqualifiedly false. The Commissioner claims no such power, he expressly denies the existence of such power, and he would strongly oppose any proposal to confer such power on him. Moreover, the solicitor's recent ruling referred to by Mr. Cohen does not in any way suggest that the Commissioner has the plenary power suggested by Mr. Cohen.

6. Mr. Cohen said that the bill would give the Bureau the power to enforce illegal and unconstitutional regulations. As an attorney Mr. Cohen must know that this is not true. It is a well settled principle of our legal system that no act of Congress can authorize the enforcement of an unconstitutional regulation.

7. Mr. Cohen said that the bill is part of a new program to reduce Indians to the condition of prisoners of the Bureau. He also stated that the bill would apply to Indians "the same coercive measures" that were applied during war time to American citizens of Japanese descent in War Relocation Authority concentration camps. Both of these related statements in the memorandum are completely without foundation in fact. Nothing in the proposed bill would remotely affect the right of any Indian to reside where he wishes or to travel as freely as any other citizen. As far as the War Relocation Authority program is concerned, the foremost objective of WRA from its earliest days was to take the evacuated Japanese-Americans out of the institutional environment into which they had been plunged by military orders and to restore them as rapidly as possible to ordinary American communities.

Mr. MYER. Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS. Are there any other witnesses present who feel that they must get away to some other obligations?

Mr. Willis, you are not the next witness in line, particularly, but do you have some reason for wanting to appear at this time? Mr. WILLIS. I do represent a majority of the Mission Indians and this bill, H. R. 3624, directly affects our people. Mr. Adam Castillo and I are here at the request of the great majority of the Mission Indians, and this bill is our bill.

Mr. MORRIS. Certainly we will be glad to hear you at this time, Mr. Willis. As I said, we do not want to rush you, and we will not rush you, but we would like to have you get down to the central point as rapidly as we can, because our time is very precious and we do not want to waste time.

But we will take time to hear you; we are very happy to do that, and happy to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF PURL WILLIS ON BEHALF OF THE MISSION INDIANS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very sure that the position of the Mission Indians and in fact all the California Indians, will prove of much interest to you in this lawenforcement matter. I would like to read our prepared statement first. It covers the issues generally. Then there are some additional statements that I want to make.