* * *

* * *

to pass a referendum in some reservations against action by the States where we would recommend that they be included anyhow." The complete statement appears at page 62 of the transcript of this hearing. Attorney Sigler supported his chief's desire to push State criminal jurisdiction down the Indians' throats if necessary when he said that "The 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."

What is Commissioner Myer's alternative to the proposed referendum? He says that he will recommend to the Congress what should be done about each of these tribes. However, he admits that he "should not make recommendations without consulting the Indians.' At the outset of his testimony he opposes the referendum and says that "we believe that consultation with the tribes, tribal councils, and other groups is better.' In other words, Commissioner Myer pretends that he is going to determine the democratic will of the Indians and report it. He thinks that this method of determining it is better than the age-old system of holding an election. To determine whether he is correct, we can consider some evidence in this very record.

The questions that should be answered are: What Indian groups will the Commissioner consult? Will they be representative? Will the nature of the legislation be made clear to them? Will it be made clear to them that they have an opportunity to block the legislation? Can the Commissioner be relied on to report back opinions adverse to his own policy? Will the inquiries to the tribe be reduced to writing? Will the replies from the tribes be requested and obtained in writing or in the form of second- and third-hand rumors? How reliable will these reports be?

The unreliability of the process of "consultation" that the Commissioner proposes is demonstrated by his performance at this very hearing. The Commissioner opposed Congressman D'Ewart's bill because it contains a referendum clause. However, he supported H. R. 3624 to impose State jurisdiction in California. It is to be admitted that representatives of two groups from California also testified in favor of the bill. But this is not important. Our question is: What kind of "consultation" is the Commissioner's recommendation based upon? Does it clearly reflect the will of the Indians? Let us examine it, as reported upon by the Department itself.

The report of the Acting Secretary on the California bill says: "The area director consulted with the various Indian groups on a legislative proposal similar to H. R. 3624. No opposition to the enactment of the proposed legislation was voided by any of the Indian groups." Assuming that the Indians of California support this bill, we would not want to oppose it. But for the sake of argument we must investigate the character of the "consultation." If the area director "consulted" the Indians not about H. R. 3624 but about a "legislative proposal similar to it," then the question is, how similar was it? What was the proposal? Why doesn't the Commissioner submit a copy of the proposal that he actually submitted to these Indians?

Not

Let us suppose that the area director did actually submit to these Indians a proposal exactly similar to H. R. 3624. Let us suppose that they all endorsed it. Is the Commissioner now recommending the bill that they endorsed? at all. H. R. 3624 provides only for the transfer of criminal jurisdiction. But the amendments that the Commissioner recommends contain two additional important provisions; namely, the liquor-law repeal and the transfer of civil jurisdiction. The Commissioner certainly gives the impression that the Indians are on his side, but it is obviously not demonstrated by the evidence he submits. After this performance, how far can this committee rely on the Commissioner to consult with the Indians and accurately report back their views?

In order to find out how reliable this process of consulting and reporting has been in California, the committee should also ask the Commissioner for the names and addresses of the officials that he consulted in each of the California Indian communities. There are 115 of them. We wonder how many community leaders the area director of the Indian Bureau consulted. I am extremely doubtful that the area director consulted very many actual representatives of tribes at all. The Department report only says that he consulted with "the various Indian groups.' Which groups were these? Who knows that they were not mostly limited to Indian-office employees? What sort of consultation was it? Did they submit anything in writing or get any answers in writing? If not, why not? If not, then this committee should not rely on the Department's report.

It is also important to examine the nature of the Department's report on the reaction of the Indians. They do not say that any group but one actually endorsed

any legislation. As to the others, they say only that "no opposition to the enactment of the proposed legislation was voiced by any of the groups." If any of the Congressmen ever lived on Indian reservations he knows that ordinary working Indians do not usually "voice opposition" when the area director comes around. But the story might well be different if there were a secret ballot.

The most important factor in Mr. Myer's testimony is that it is in clear cpposition to the opinion of his own superiors in the Department of the Interior, as expressed in the letter that he personally delivered to the committee. As Congressman D'Ewart pointed out, the Department previously blocked a bill because it did not contain a referendum provision. Does this mean that the Department is inconsistent? Not at all. It only means that Myer is operating independently of departmental control. He thinks he is running the Department, instead of Oscar Chapman. From some of the things Chapman has stood for in the recent past, he may well be right.

The divergence between Myer's opinion and that of the Department is clear from an examination of this record. In his letter of January 10, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Dale Doty does not repudiate the Department's previous policy of insisting on a referendum. To the contrary, he says that the present system "has prevailed since the early days of our country, and represent recognition of the principle that Indians should retain maximum control over their intratribal relationships consonant with effective maintenance of law and order, and that they should not be subjected without their consent or without good cause to laws with which they are unfamiliar and to the jurisdiction of the State courts where they may be subjected to discriminatory treatment."

Doty's objection to the D'Ewart bill are on entirely different grounds from those of Myer. As clearly stated in his letter, they are (a) that there should be prior negotiations with the States and (b) that the transfer to State jurisdiction should be on a State-by-State basis. These objections are also invalid. The D'Ewart bill would leave the Secretary free to handle the change on a State-by-State basis if he wanted to. It would also leave him free to consult the State governments before calling an election. However, the important fact about it is that Doty's reasons are entirely different from those of Myer.

Doty (speaking for Chapman) does not oppose the referendum. Myer does. Before paying much attention to Myer, this committee ought to find out whether or not Oscar Chapman has abdicated his authority to him.

Myer himself almost admits the necessity of the referendum clause when he says: "Even if we had a regiment or division of policy 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 of the local citizenry in wanting a good job done.”

If Myer defeats democratic aspiration of the Indians to have a share of their own destiny, he will be doing it for no good reason. There is every reason to believe that tribes all over the country, if given a chance to choose, will accept State law and order. If they do not, there is every reason to believe that they will devise an adequate alternative. They should be given a chance to do this before State law and order is forced down their throats. If Myer forces it down their throats, it will be for no good reason except that he personally likes to do things that way. And, if he does, he will never get the "support of the Indians themselves" that he admits he must have.

In re House of Representatives Bill No. 459, Eighty-second Congress.
To the Committees on Indian Affairs of House and Senate:

In the Kiowa, Comanche and Wichita Reservation, which was opened to settlement in 1901, at which time the tribal members then living each got an allotment of 160 acres, and surplus lands opened to homestead entry, and the tribal government, these Indians then came under the jurisdiction of territorial, later State courts.

In the Five Civilized Tribes and Osage Nation, Indian estates were probated in the county courts while among other Indians in the State probate procedure is handled by the examiner of inheritance subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior, with heirship under State law.

Inasmuch as all of these Indians are subject to the draft as other citizens, vote and are taxable as other citizens, they should have the same right to buy beer, declared by law as nonintoxicating, like other citizens can do.

In guardianship matters, adoption proceedings, juvenile delinquency, compulsory school matters they must abide by the State laws. They must secure

marriage licenses and divorce decrees under State law, and I believe that where in divorce orders for support are made the property of Indians under Government should be made to respond to the judgment.

The Government retains at least three licensed attorneys at this office, and service should be made on the superintendent and one of these attorneys appear for the office so the facts developed will be known.

I have watched these Indians for more than 60 years, practiced law or been a county judge and country attorney for 8 years; and a police judge and justice of the peace for more than 40 years.

I think they should be released as much as possible from Federal supervision. The only way they can learn to manage their affairs is to have some experience doing it.

More than 50 years ago their grandparents were allotted, and in many ways they are as helpless as at that time. The Indian Bureau should be operated for the benefit of Indian wards, and not for that of Federal employees.

I am personally known to Hon. Toby Morris, Congressman for this district; Hon. Page Belcher and Senator Mike Monroney.

Very truly,

ANADARKO, OKLA.

C. Ross HUME.

Mr. GEORGE. I would like to compliment Congressman D'Ewart for his efforts on behalf of the American Indian and also on behalf of the very fine interest this committee has shown on behalf of the American Indian. I should like also to thank the committee for the honor of being allowed to appear here and express these comments. Mr. MORRIS. Are there any questions?

Mr. MURDOCK. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

You have no doubt heard from many different tribes. What would be your offhand opinion about the question of hard liquor: that most of them that you have contacted want to remove the measure concerning Indians off the reservation?

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, sir; but that we do have some tribes throughout the country who would like to keep the use of intoxicating liquor from their reservation. They would like to deny that privilege to all people, whether they be Indians or other. They would like to have a closed reservation. If that is their wish it should be recognized and also, in the case of the tribes who would like to have it repealed outside and inside their reservation, that also should be given favorable consideration.

Mr. MORRIS. All right. Thank you.

Boyd J. Jackson, representing the Klamath tribe. Is Mr. Jackson present? All right, Mr. Jackson, we will hear from you.

STATEMENT OF BOYD J. JACKSON, REPRESENTING THE
KLAMATH TRIBE

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Boyd J. Jackson. I am the official delegate for the Klamath Tribe of Oregon. I had not intended to make any statement at this time; however, inasmuch as the sections of the bill that had been introduced by the Committee on Judiciary have been read and discussed here to some extent, I felt that I should at this time make a short statement with reference to my way of thinking as to what is being attempted here.

I want to say at the outset that I happen to be one of your students or scholars that you have taken under your wing to educate and bring to a certain point where you can say, "Well, Mr. First American, you take over now, and do your own driving."

Now, unless we are permitted to take the wheel, so to speak, somewhere along the line, you can tell us and advise us to doomsday, but until we actually practice driving, then only will be the time when we can, when you can and I can, feel that I am ready to do a job, Now, it has taken a long time in which to finally get our thinking together, I as an Indian, you as the Congress, and Mr. Myer as the Commissioner, who is your eyes, ears, and arms to take care of our business, and we have for quite some time past been very much concerned with.

I might at this point say that I only represent a very small group and it is for them that I am officially authorized to speak, and beyond that, why, whatever is said on my part, that can be applied to others of my fellow men, well then, well and good. I think, then, that I would have contributed something toward my people.

Now, the proposed amendment to title 18 of the United States Code as was read to you, and in substance recommended its adoption; this is presumed to be the act that will apply to any group in the State of Oregon. And in the bill that your Congressman D'Ewart is recommending, I don't think that we are too far apart. I think that our thinking is practically along the same lines.

What I am interested in is some machinery to be set up that can and will handle our law and order business. We have friction between ourselves and the State on the one hand; they feel that they do not have jurisdiction, especially over our juvenile group. And that is a part of our set-up which needs close supervision. By that I don't mean to say that our youngsters are any worse than groups of other communities, but we do lack the jurisdiction with which to have them taken care of when they do get into trouble, and we have been constantly turned down. In some cases here, years back, there have been officials in our courts that have sort of set the matter of jurisdiction aside and helped us out. But when it is all said and done, if the official successor to the official in question would, as now happens to be the case, take the position that he has not jurisdiction, why then we are out on a limb.

I have cried on the shoulders of every official that I think I could come to, go to, in the hope that something could be worked out without having to resort to legislation to take care of the problem. I have gone to the Commissioner, I have gone to our Governor, but was not able to be given the answers that I wanted.

And not only from the standpoint of the State, but also from the Federal standpoint. Now, in view of that need, I have taken the position that whether I am entirely in agreement for the State to take care of the handling of law and order for my people, on the whole I am more or less helpless, inasmuch as we have to have some machinery set up to take care of our youngsters; and when this matter was broached in the last year or two or more, I, as I said, tried to get help but was not able to, and during the past winter, we finally decided among ourselves that the short cut to getting this done would be to consent to the handling of law and order by our State. And that consent was given by the council here May of last year and the matter since then has been in the course of process and finally introduced here a few days ago.

I will then, when called upon by the committee that has the handling of this bill, make my full statement, but, however, in the event that the

committee, that particular committee, should feel that the matter is something that should be subject to the disposition of this committee, why, then I felt that what I had to say regarding this bill should be said by me here and now at this time.

Mr. MORRIS. We appreciate your appearing here and giving us the benefit of your thinking. Is there anything further?

Mr. JACKSON. Now what I would like to suggest now is in line with the matter of hunting and fishing, a right that the bill has accorded to practically all tribes.

Mr. MORRIS. There is no objection on that. We all agree on that. Mr. JACKSON. Well, here it appears I am a little bit off color on that. Now, with reference to my set-up, our feeling is this: That if and when such a right should be reserved to any group, then I would like to know in definite terms set out in the law that we would be permitted to have the right to police our land within the reservation. That is, at our own cost. That is something that we reserved and it is something I think the reservation should do, to the extent of given police powers.

Mr. MORRIS. You have a point there that has not been raised and you may have a good point. I am interested in that, at least. Mr. D'EWART. Section 4 reads:

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to deprive any Indian tribe, band, or community or member thereof of hunting or fishing as granted them by agreement, treaty, or custom, or require them to obtain a State fish or game license for the exercise of such rights.

And I think that, taken in connection with the bill that grants concurrent jurisdiction, gives you exactly what you want.

Mr. JACKSON. I want to be definitely assured as to whether or not the proposed law would go that far.

Mr. D'EWART. Let us ask our committee counsel what his opinion is on that point. He raised the question of whether they would have jurisdiction over this game if they accepted this amendment.

Mr. PEDEN. Under the provisions of that amendment, as I recall it, they are not to be disturbed in their hunting and fishing rights, which are certainly accepted under the provisions of this basic bill. Owning such rights as they have, pursuant to treaty or custom, therefore they would be protected in their right. For example, they would not be required to have a fishing license or a hunting license to pursue such pursuit as they had by custom or was given them by

treaty.

Mr. D'EWART. And the tribe would still have the right to make such rules and regulations concerning hunting and fishing as they would desire to, under the other provisions of the bill?

Mr. PEDEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. The other point I had in mind was with reference. to this concurrent jurisdiction. In the event that something should happen and the State should decide that, I don't think we ought to go to the extent of handling law and order, for certain, maybe, reasons that they would want to set out, in that event, why then it is kicked back to the Federal authorities to handle.

Now, my point is that unless there is some definite provision set up in the event it is kicked back, that you don't now have in the way of administering our juvenile delinquency problem, well, what then? That is my other question.

Now with reference to the matter of repealing the Federal liquor