These and other difficulties arise from Bureau jurisdiction over what is really only a small portion of the Indians of California. There are an estimated 3,000 of such Indians, but there are many thousands living outside of the reservations. A signatory of this petition, Clarence H. Lobo, captain of the San Juan Capistrano-Santa Ana band of Mission Indians, and members of these bands living in their own homes like other citizens of those two California communities, have nothing to do with the election or law-enforcement difficulties mentioned above as the Bureau exerts no such jurisdiction over them. The one point of contact with Bureau administration relates to the pro rata distribution of approximately $6,000,000 which was in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Indians of California.

Protests of the Indian people in respect to prorata distribution were stated to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs by the undersigned and especially by Captain Clarence H. Lobo, in a conference on April 5 in Washington, D. C., and were confirmed in a letter to the Commissioner written at the request of the undersigned by the attorney of the San Juan Capistrano-Santa Ana Band on April 10, a copy of which letter is attached hereto as a part of this petition. Congressman Phillips at the request of the undersigned delegation has introduced a bill (H. R. 3746) to distribute the balance of funds in the Treasury (about $2 million) to its rightful owners, the Indians of California, this bill having been designed by us to correct some of the vices of the present system of administration pointed out in the attached letter to the Commissioner, particularly the elimination of probate charges and ancient debts as counterclaims by the Government. We hope for your support of this bill.

CONCLUSION

In closing, we wish to submit to you that the basic problems presented are very old indeed. As long ago as 1875 when one John G. Ames was sent from Washington to investigate the affairs of the Mission Indians, he reported back to the Secretary of the Interior that one of the principal grievances was the same one we have pointed out in this petition. He wrote of a conference with Olegario, one of the great Indian leaders of the day, "acting chief of the large majority of the San Luis Rey Tribe, though not recognized as such by the late Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California" who came to the conference "accompanied by 10 of his captains * * * Mr. Ames reported:

"They urged, furthermore, as a special grievance, that their right to elect their own chief had been interfered with by the late superintendent, and that the Government recognize as chief an Indian who was repudiated by nearly all the tribe, against whom they protested at the time of his appointment, 2 years ago, and whose authority they had since disregarded. They wished a new election ordered, that the tribe might choose its own chief and be no longer even nominally subject to one to whom so few owed allegiance" (U. S. House Executive Documents, vol. 9, Nos. 58-122, 43d Cong., 1st sess., 1873-74, p. 5).

Ames later visited "the flourishing Palma Rancheria on the Palma grant, reaching Rincon, the residence of Olegario" (adjoining La Jolla), where the abortive election was held in August of 1950 as related above), and after visiting more Mission Indians, again says in respect to Olegario:

"At present they are in trouble about their chief, as indicated at the conference at Los Angeles. A large majority prefer Olegario, and if an election were held now he would doubtless be chosen. He is intelligent above the average, peaceably disposed toward the whites, capable of controlling his Indians-for he is virtually chief, notwithstanding the action of the late superintendent and is at the same time an enthusiastic defender of his people and disposed to take advanced grounds on questions of their rights. A more competent man altogether cannot be found in the tribe" (U. S. House Executive Documents, vol. 9, Nos. 58-122, 43d Cong., 1st sess., 1873–74, p. 7).

The great leader Olegario died long ago, but history has repeated itself ever since down to the present day. We can only hope that at long last in the year 1951, you will give immediate and continued attention to necessary changes of policy and personnel in order to eradicate the abuses mentioned in this petition. The foregoing petition is respectfully submitted by the undersigned:

(Mrs.) JULIANA CALAC,

Captain and spokesman for the Pala Band of Mission Indians.

CLARENCE H. LOBO,

Captain, San Juan Capistrano-Santa Ana Band.

ADAM CASTILLO,

President, Mission Indian Federation.

APRIL 10, 1951.

Hon. DILLON S. MYER,
Commissioner of Indian Affairs,

Department of the Interior,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to the conference in your office on April 5, I have been asked by Mrs. Juliana Calac, captain and spokesman for the Pala Band, and by Clarence Lobo, captain of the San Juan Capistrano-Santa Ana Band of Mission Indians, to confirm the objections stated to you in respect to the present policies in respect to distribution of per capita payments in California. 1. Distribution of application forms: The policy of your State director, Mr. James B. Ring, has been to limit the distribution of essential forms very largely to individuals. Repeated efforts by Clarence Lobo to get a substantial number of forms for distribution to Indians who came to him in large numbers from San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ana groups, were futile. When the writer telephoned

to James B. Ring at Sacramento on March 9, 1951, requesting that 500 forms be sent to Mr. Lobo, I was assured by Mr. Ring that a large shipment would be sent. Mr. Lobo announced this, but only about 35 applications were received, and the most important form was missing entirely.

Forms were printed at one time identical with those furnished by your office, for use by other bands of Mission Indians, but your Sacramento office returned such forms and this effort was of no avail.

In the conference on April 5, you yourself have confirmed this policy by expressing the view that distribution of forms should be confined to the individual basis, and that there should not be a distribution of a large number of forms to persons who might seek to exploit their use for their own purposes or words to this general effect. If your staff thought to handle by individual contact every application and every applicant, it would have been necessary to have had perhaps 100 or so men in the field to do this work with reasonable dispatch. Lacking such means of expediting the work, there was no alternative but to utilize such informal methods of distributing applications through such people as Clarence Lobo and others known to the Indians and to whom they naturally look for assistance. The Indians themselves know best who is entitled to receive an applicaiton and who is not.

The visit of one field worker on one occasion to San Juan Capistrano with plenty of applications in his car, was patently inadequate as a means of checking individuals entitled to receive the applications, or as a means of securing sufficiently wide distribution. Hundreds still lack forms, but letters requesting forms were in vain. Small wonder that some received forms and made application who were not entitled to distribution, at least one of whom frankly admits that he has no Indian blood and was not entitled to the money which he actually received. He said he would take it "if they are going to hand it out." Mr. Lobo, to whom Mr. Ring carefully avoided sending an adequate supply of applications, would never have handed an application to this particular man.

The State director's office has advised that the time for filing applications expires on May 23, 1951. With little more than a month remaining, the policies being followed unless completely reversed to accomplish the fullest distribution, will result in defeating the legal right of many Indians to apply for a distribution and receive payment. Under any system a certain number of mistakes will undoubtedly be made in distributing to people not entitled to receive any portion of the funds of the Treasury (and such errors will have to be left to subsequent legal proceedings by the United States district attorney), but notwithstanding this the filing of applications is a matter of right under the statute and the policies of your office in California under James M. Stewart and James B. Ring, successive State directors, has measurably defeated the purposes of the statute under which distribution was to be accomplished.

2. Offset and counterclaims: The statute under which distribution of funds in the Treasury of the United States is being accomplished (ch. 196, Public Law 524, approved May 24, 1950) provides that "the money paid to enrollees pursuant to this section shall not be subject to any lien or claim of any nature against any of such persons, except for debts owing to the United States."

Under the present policies of your office in California the purpose of the act is being measurably defeated and the act is being violated in the opinion of the Indians in the following particulars:

Offsets are claimed for such charges as probate fees and debts of members of the family of the person entitled to distribution. Thus Mrs. Calac was informed that she could not receive the $150 due to her without deducting the probate fees for

96898-52- 6

three brothers and her mother, and one debt of many years standing in the amount of $15 or $16. Debts for a sack of barley or a loan of many years standing-for example, dating from 1933 or 1934 in some cases, have been charged against the distribution. Many of these charges were not debts of the individual entitled to distribution.

Nevertheless, many Indians, lacking legal advice, and realizing it would be too costly to resist, have accepted the balance of whatever payment was due to them after these offsets were charged, preferring like Omar Khayam "to take the cash and let the credit go". This has been done in face of admissions by members of your staff that the accounts for the early days were in very bad and confused condition and probably ought to be thrown away.

While legislation will no doubt be introduced to clarify this matter, it is urged that you give instructions on the basis of the present language of the act that no offset be claimed against an individual for debts of relatives, and that only the debts of "such persons" as are entitled to distribution shall be claimed by the Government. It is true that the statute of limitations cannot ordinarily be pled as a defense to claims of the United States Government, but in view of the admitted inaccuracy and insufficiency of Bureau records, you would be justified in finding that debts of a certain age cannot be proved. It would seem that none should be allowed as offsets which were prior to the stipulation in settlement in the case of United States v. California Indians, decided in the Court of Claims in 1944, because that stipulation was supposed to have settled all the offsets claimed by the United States Government against the Indians, as the Indians understood the matter.

3. Tribal funds: The greatest confusion seems to exist as to existence of tribal funds. The report of the Secretary 2 years ago indicated a substantial fund in existence for the San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ana Indians, respectively, but checking with your fiscal unit reveals none of record here. Will you please advise as to the amount of tribal funds standing in the name of the San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ana Indians, either here or in the State of California and indicate where the accounts in respect to the handling of tribal funds, their origin and disbursement in the past, can be examined.

Sincerely yours,

Re H. R. 3624.

Hon. TOBY MORRIS,

NORMAN M. LITTELL.

WASHINGTON, February 29, 1952.

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In this our supplemertal statement on H. R. 3624, we bring you additional reasons supporting our recommendations for its approval with, however, the following simple, needed clarifying amendment:

Following the enactment clause, insert the word "exclusive" after the word "have" ir line 3, so that the sentence starting on line 3 would read as follows: "That the State of California shall have exclusive 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."

We believe some confusion was caused in considering the merits of H. R. 3624 along with the other two bills-H. R. 459 and H. R. 3235. It is true that all three bills dealt with law enforcement on Indian lands. But, as the testimony disclosed, conditions justifying giving the States concerned jurisdiction are not similar. For instance, in California none of our Indians are under the WheelerHoward bill, nor do they actually practice "tribal life," but all California Indians are looked upon as living lives as individual responsibility and willingly abide by the laws of the State. Less than 5,000 of the some 20,000 California Indians reside on Indian reservations, the balance have long ago been absorbed in the general population.

There is no justification for the statement that concurrent jurisdiction is advisable in case State officials refuse or neglect to enforce the laws on Indian reservations. Such prediction is entirely in error, and casts reflection upon the State's sincerety, or the intent of the State legislature in memorializing Congress to remove all forms of restrictions. Likewise there is no need for provisions for Indian referendum as to whether Indians approve of State jurisdiction. The

statement of the Commissioner himself admits that Indians throughout the State approved that feature of the bill. All testimony was unanimous in urging jurisdiction be given the State, and we strongly urge that such jurisdiction be made exclusive, for only in this way can there ever be a solution to this perplexing problem. All Indians approve State jurisdiction, the people of the State through the State legislature have spoken in language that cannot be misinterpreted. That State resolution can be found in the Congressional Record of May 28, 1951. In support of our recommendation for exclusive jurisdiction being given to the State of California, there is but one interpretation as to what the legislature meant in the following language: "dispense with any and all restrictions, whatever their nature, whereby the freedom of the American Indian is curtailed in any respect, whether as to governmental benefits, civil rights or personal conduct * * * ""

There is no need for a referendum among Indians to learn if they favor State jurisdiction on Indian reservations, as the Commissioner admitted that Indians of the State had already considered the matter and, so far as he knew, there was universal approval.

STATE SANITARY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS ALREADY APPLY ON INDIAN
RESERVATIONS

Under the act of Congress approved February 15, 1929 (25 U. S. C., sec. 231), provision was made to turn over to each State full responsibility in all matters of sanitation and quarantine regulations and authority to enforce health laws on Indian reservations. On September 8, 1933, Secretary of the Interior Ickes took the necessary action to give force and effect to that act in the following language: "Health authorities of the State of California are hereby authorized to enter upon Indian tribal lands, reservations, or allotments within the State for the purpose of making inspection of health conditions and enforcing sanitation and quarantine regulations under State laws in the same manner as such regulations are enforced in the surrounding territory among the general population.

"Superintendents and other officials of the Office of Indian Affairs are directed to cooperate with the State and local health officers in carrying out these provi:sions.

"Approved: September 8, 1933.

"HAROLD L. ICKES, "Secretary of the Interior."

Here again, in our opinion, California stands apart from all other States, for the Secretary of the Interior fully complied with the act of Congress and turned over to California complete authority to enforce State sanitary and health laws on all Indian lands in the State. However, the State has not enforced that law, and the blame must be placed where it belongs-upon the Indian Bureau. In support of this charge, we submit the following: Housing and sanitation conditions on Indian reservations in San Diego County had been brought to the attention of the county board of supervisors regularly for many years, always with the same result. The county officials reported that the Indian superintendent claimed that the county officials had no authority in the matter. We pointed out to county officials, including the health officials, that Congress had approved an act giving full responsibility to the county health officials.

It was apparent to the county Board and other officials and to the Indians and their friends who had hoped to see the act of Congress enforced on Indian reservations, that the policy of the Indian service was to never voluntarily agree to any effort to lessen its arbitrary control of all Indian life in California. Later the same sanitation problems were laid before Mr. James M. Stewart, the newly appointed State director of Indian affairs and, after several months of delay and ignoring our requests for his cooperation in seeing that the act was enforced, that official in 1949, filed a statement with the county board of supervisors and stated: "So far as I know there is no general regulation concerning applicability of State housing laws on Indian reservations."

We have reason to believe that an opinion from the office of the attorney general of the State will be forthcoming declaring that it is within the responsibility of the State and county health officials to see that this act of Congress above-quoted is enforced among Indian reservations; and, if that is done, it will be an advance step in eliminating one of the worst conditions affecting Indians. The Indian service in California deserves strong reprimand for not allowing this law to be enforced within the State.

STATE WELFARE CODE DECLARES THAT STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST

BE ENFORCED

Similar complaint regarding the Sanitation Act lack of enforcement on Indian lands is made regarding the question as to why the State welfare code (sec. 2500) concerning aid to needy citizens of the State has not been construed as applying to needy Indians living on reservations. Recently the attorney general of California, Mr. Edmund G. Brown, ruled that the welfare law applies equally to needy Indians the same as to all other citizens. For the record we file with you copy of that important ruling, and recommend that it be made a part of the printed record.

A summary of our statement shows that—

(1) That Congress has approved a sanitation and housing law, which if applied to California (and the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations turning such authority to the State) would greatly improve Indian conditions and lessen Bureau responsibility in the State.

(2) We have likewise shown that the attorney general of California has recently ruled that the State welfare code equally applies to needy Indians even though they reside on Indian reservations, and that State law must be enforced, and that would entirely eliminate a large part of the Bureau program proposed for California.

(3) And with prompt approval of H. R. 3624, with amendments we urge, exclusive responsibility and jurisdiction would be given the State, a clear case is made. In other Bureau activities in the State, there can be found no constructive justification for tolerating its existence. The enactment of H. R. 3624 at this time will largely clarify our duty and mandate to end the "century of dishonor" in California Indian Bureau rule.

Respectfully,

ADAM CASTILLO,
PURL WILLIS,

Delegates.

Mr. MORRIS. With the approval of the other committee members. we will reconvenue here at 1:30 this afternoon to continue the hearing. This is going to discommode a lot of us. I have many appointments. We have a bill on the floor and some of us will have to be there part of the time. But to accommodate the other witnesses we are going to reconvenue at 1:30, with one exception; we will hear one witness at this time, Mr. Cooper, before we adjourn. You may make a very short statement and extend your remarks for the record. Mr. Cooper, we are happy to have you here.

STATEMENT OF FORREST E. COOPER, COUNSEL FOR THE INTERSTATE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC LAND COUNTIES

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Forrest E. Cooper, counsel for the Interstate Association of Public Land Counties, which is a tax-supported institution which represents county government in all of our Western States except New Mexico and California. In the case of California our association represents some of the 10 cow counties in the northeast portion of the State.

You had a bill of this kind come out of this committee I think in 1948. My association, which represents about 400 counties in the Western States, supported that measure. We were just as sorry as you were that the bill was defeated on the Senate side. I want you to know that we still support in principle the objective of this legislation, and by way of contract, we ain't mad at nobody, and I would be glad to file a statement and let you know that, if in the course of your deliberations it should develop at any time that you want to know how county Government-which is the one that is going to pick up the check; we hire the sheriffs and the deputies and so forth-feels.