I do not believe that particular kind of an inducement is the proper kind. I believe that should be settled by doing it separately, without handing over State jurisdiction of the Indians. That is all I want to say, gentlemen. Thank you. Congressman Murdock, do you have any observations or comments? Mr. MURDOCK. I might make this observation, Mr. Chairman. What may seem to you to be a tie-up between the question of liquor and extending the State law may not be actually such, but the inevitable connection, could it not be that, that there be more need of enforcement of State law in case you had liquor. Mr. SALUSKIN. I believe there would be need for a certain period of time while people were adjusting themselves to the habit of drinking liquor, because I feel my people are just as intelligent as any other people or any other group in drinking liquor. They drink it now. They get it anyway. I don't know where they get it but they probably use it more excessively at the present time than they would if they had the privilege of getting it. Mr. MURDOCK. I think you are logical in saying that the two ought to be separated. If the right to liquor is a fundamental American right, it ought to be extended to you without any strings attached. Mr. SALUSKIN. That is what I believe. On this point, on the one hand you conscript our boys to the wars, and after they take their uniforms off and come back to the reservation area immediately this discriminatory law is applicable to them and they can't go back and exercise the privilege of other citizens. When they were in uniform they drank with their buddies over the bar anyplace in the country. Mr. MURDOCK. It is to do away with the discriminatory nature of the thing that you are thinking of? Mr. SALUSKIN. Yes. Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask this, Mr. Chairman. Are you in favor of permitting liquor on the reservation or do you speak now of permitting Indians to get a drink off the reservation only? Mr. SALUSKIN. Only I would express it in this way: That my tribe in the general council have passed a resolution which is a mandate to the tribal council that they do not care what they do with the liquor law as long as it is outside of the boundaries of the reservation. Mr. MURDOCK. In other words, you would have local option so to speak? Mr. SALUSKIN. Yes. Mr. MURDOCK. No liquor on the reservation but no discriminatory legislation against the Indian getting a drink off the reservation. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. D'Ewart? Mr. D'EWART. May I make a point, Mr. Murdock. It should be applicable to the white men on the reservation the same as anyone. Mr. MURDOCK. That looks fair. In other words, no bringing of liquor on the reservation. Mr. D'EWART. That is right. Mr. MORRIS. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Saluskin. Mr. YALLUP. I want to thank you for allowing us to make our statements. I just want to mention that Mr. Saluskin has been very ill and we came near losing him, and he had a few shots in order that he could say a few words. Mr. MORRIS. It is a pleasure to have you here. All right. Mr. Frank George. We are not trying to rush anyone, but time is very important. Will you please be brief? Mr. GEORGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT of Frank GEORGE, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS Mr. GEORGE. My name is Frank George. I am a member of the tribal delegation from the Colville Reservation in the State of Washington. In this statement I am going to express the views of the National Congress of American Indians, of which I am first vice president. I also served in the capacity of vice chairman of the Governors' State Council of Indian Affairs, at the behest of Governor Luther Youngdahl of Minnesota, in 1950. Mr. D'EWART. I might say the last time I saw Mr. George was in Helena, Mont., where he was making an address as delegate from the Colville Indians at the Governors' conference-a very able address. Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Congressman D'Ewart. I would like to say that our organization, the National Congress of American Indians, by virtue of their Resolution No. 9, adopted at the last convention in St. Paul, states in part that the National Congress of American Indians objects to the extension to Indian reservations of State jurisdiction over law and order except with the consent of the tribes affected thereby; and it is very encouraging to us to know that Congressman D'Ewart has put those amendments in that do away with the objections that were raised with this group at that convention. Although I am not familiar with the section or amendment providing for referendum voting by the tribes, I do think that such a section does change the legislation so as to make it more acceptable to the tribes that have objected to the law-and-order jurisdiction bills. On the subject of referendums, it would be necessary to include a stipulation that at least 30 percent of the legal voters of the tribe shall vote at such referendums. You heard the Commissioner raise a point on that this morning, or some representative of the Bureau did say that there probably might not be a large enough turn-out to determine the will of the majority. All these bills that affect Indians should provide for Indian consent on a local-option basis, and much of the opposition to the various legislation would be overcome if provisions are made to permit the Indians to voice their convictions on the issues that affect them. We all oppose unilateral imposition of controls over us. At least we would like to have a small voice in what is being done with us. On this proposal of obtaining the consent of the governed, where it is used wherever possible, it need not be used all the time, but it is a better foundation for the law if the people affected have a voice in what is to be done to them. And, then, I believe some thought should be given to whether one election would be sufficient for the purpose of carrying out this legislation. It is our understanding that only one election is provided for. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of having a second election if a tribe turns it down the first time. At the same time it might be well to provide Indian tribes with an opportunity to get out from under the provisions of this proposed legislation, after they have voted to become amenable to State laws. The experience we have is this: The application of the compulsory school law, as provided for in the Johnson-O'Malley Act, is hampered because a tribal government will not give school officials a right to enforce the compulsory school law within Indian country because of the knowledge that they cannot withdraw after the first decision; that is, they cannot withdraw that first authorization, once they grant it. In the legislation that is being discussed today, the bill or bills as written provide for the Indians to have only one chance to decide whether or not they want State law and order. Furthermore, if they do decide to have State law and order, they cannot go back; they cannot change their minds later and go back to tribal or Federal law and order. At least, they cannot do so without first getting the consent of Congress. Our experience on the Colville Reservation in the State of Washington is that the Indian Reorganization Act would have been accepted if the tribe had been permitted to hold another referendum or election. We voted it down but later took the view that it might have been advantageous to the tribe if they had voted to come under the act. Another point that our people bring up, and the Colvilles have expressed this opinion also, is that there should be no imposition of controls through legislation when that legislation is attached and made a part of any pending or future bill. It would be better to enact these things as independent measures and on their own merits. The liquorlaw repeal should not be tied to a jurisdiction bill nor should it be made a part of any other bill. It is not right to say that when criminal jurisdiction is transferred to the State that the Indian liquor law shall no longer be applicable because it carried the implication that the Indians agree to obtain the privilege of purchasing and consuming intoxicating liquor in exchange for not complaining when the States take over their powers of selfgovernment. Most of us feel that the Indian liquor law should be repealed because it is wrong and unconstitutional. The Colvilles have expressed that view as have the Red Lake Chippewa and the San Carlos Apache, when they opposed such legislation. On the matter of the Indian liquor law, we heard some discussion on it yesterday, and it all seemed to be against the liquor law. If this "canned heat" question is to be disposed of, it is our belief that separate hearings be called by this committee. There are a lot of religious people who pose the further existence of the obsolete Indian liquor law and all of our Indians should be heard. We have been waiting for this for many years and we should be given an opportunity to be heard on this issue of discriminatory liquor laws. It is our hope that this committee will call hearings on Congressman Poulson's bill at a very early date because we think Congressman Poulson has the solution to that problem, because that bill also has an option clause, the same as Congressman D'Ewart has applied in the matter of the jurisdictional bills. The present Indian liquor law is the last law that still infringes basic civil rights of Indians of the United States and this obsolete and discriminatory law should be repealed immediately. The records show that all previous attempts to legislate Indian abstinence have failed and that the general conditions of the Indians have not been improved as a result of such laws. A hearing should be held very soon in order that the Congress will have an opportunity to consider it before adjournment. We urge that very strongly, because we think our tribal government has been asking year after year that the Indian liquor law be repealed and I think that we should resolve that issue at a very early date. I want to put into the record at this time, with the chairman's approval, a letter which we have from Andrew Dunlap, secretary of the Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, dated February 26, 1952. It is a letter addressed to our general counsel. The point he brings up in there is: (1) I do support Congressman D'Ewart's bill with the proposed amendments. (2) Since we, in Oklahoma, are under the State and county laws, the bill should be extended to cover all States. (3) Once the Indians have accepted the State law and order, a change back to Indian or Federal law and order should not be allowed. (4) Once the Indians have refused State law and order they ought to have a chance to change their minds later. (5) If, as you propose, the Indian liquor law be incorporated into a separate piece of legislation, I see nothing that should or could be changed to make a better bill. This is my personal opinion, but I will take it up with the Caddo executive committee at our next meeting and will then send you a report of its reaction. I would like your permission to put that in the record, Mr. Chair man. Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. It may be incorporated in the record at this point. (The letter referred to is as follows:) Mr. JAMES E. CURRY, Washington 3, D. C. ANADARKO, OKLA., February 26, 1952. DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of the 21st, I want to say that: (1) I do support Congressman D'Ewart's bill with the proposed amendments. (2) Since we, in Oklahoma, are under the State and county laws, the bill should be extended to cover all States. (3) Once the Indians have accepted the State law and order, a change back to Indian or Federal law and order should not be allowed. (4) Once the Indians have refused State law and order, they ought to have a chance to change their minds later. (5) If, as you propose, the Indian liquor law be incorporated into a separate piece of legislation, I see nothing that should or could be changed to make a better bill. This is my personal opinion, but I will take it up with the Caddo executive committee at our next meeting and will then send you a report of its reaction. Yours very truly, ANDREW DUNLAP, Secretary, Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma. Mr. GEORGE. I also have here a wire, also addressed to our general counsel, and it says [reading]: Resolution. On February 28, 1952, a mass meeting of the Nooksack Tribe in the State of Washington went on record as objecting to Senator Harry P. Cain's bill S. 1077, and all similar bills which would make the Indians of the State amenable to the State criminal laws. In the past it has been our experience that the State laws and the laws on restricted lands did contrast much to the annoyance of the Nooksack people: Therefore be it Resolved, That we, the Nooksack Tribe, remain free from State laws on our restricted lands and our treaty rights be maintained; furthermore be it Resolved in the future, That the Indians be contacted before any laws be enacted that may concern them, their rights, and their heritage. And that is signed, "Thomas H. Williams, Chairman, Nooksack Council." With your permission we would like to enter that in the record. Mr. MORRIS. Without objection it will be entered in the record. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) JAMES E. CURRY, Washington, D. C.: BELLINGHAM, WASH., February 29, 1952. Resolution. On February 28, 1952, a mass meeting of the Nooksack Tribe in State of Washington went on record as objecting to Senator Harry P. Cain's bill S. 1077 and all similar bills which would make the Indians of the State amenable to the State criminal laws. In the past it has been our experience that the State laws and the laws on restricted lands did contrast much to the annoyance of the Nooksack people: Therefore be it Resolved: That we, the Nooksack Tribe, remain free from State laws on our restricted lands and our treaty rights be maintained: Furthermore be it Resolved, That in the future the Indians be contacted before any laws be enacted that may concern them, their rights, and their heritage. THOMAS H. WILLIAMS, Chairman, Nooksack Council. Mr. GEORGE. I would like this additional request, and I would like to put in the record that our organization has circularized all of the tribes on this jurisdictional legislation and we would like to have a few days in which to file their statements and we would like also to have permission for our general counsel to file here a general statement to cover the points brought up on this jurisdictional legislation being proposed by your committee, and we would like to have that made a part of the record, too. Mr. MORRIS. We are anxious to complete the record. Could we have that within 10 days? Mr. GEORGE. Yes, we will. Mr. MORRIS. We will specify 10 days on that. (The matter referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES E. CURRY, ATTORNEY FOR THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, ON H. R. 459, H. R. 3624, AND H. R. 3235 On February 29, the main statement for the National Congress of American Indians on these bills was presented by Mr. Frank George, vice president of the organization. At that time he asked and obtained permission for me, as attorney for the NCAI to file an additional statement within 10 days. I wish to reiterate Mr. George's statement of appreciation to Congressman D'Ewart for changing his bill to provide that jurisdiction shall not be conferred upon any State as to crimes on any reservation without first obtaining the consent by referendum of the Indians of the reservation affected. I also want to call attention again to the two amendments that Mr. George suggested for consideration by the committee: (a) An amendment providing that if the Indians should reject or should accept the act, provision should be made for later additional referenda if it is found desirable to reconsider the action. Some tribes are now sorry that they rejected the Indian Reorganization Act and would like to reconsider. Öthers are sorry that they accepted it. In neither case can the tribes, under present law, change their minds; but they should be able to do so. |