STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 837) to restore and add certain public lands to the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report: This bill represents a compromise, laboriously worked out over a period of many years, of certain controversies between the Ute Indians, white stockmen of eastern Utah, and the agencies of the Government concerned with Indian and public lands in the State of Utah. The bill as originally passed by the House attempted to settle two of these public-land controversies, as follows: (1) It disposed of a long-standing controversy between the Ute Indians and the white stockmen as to the future use of approximately 220,000 acres of land, which are held by the United States for the account of the Ute Indians, by restoring approximately 61,000 acres to the Indians and by the United States taking free of trust restrictions the other 159,000 acres which will be made available as public domain for the use of white stockmen. It contemplated that the Indians would be entitled to claim compensation for the 159,000 acres in the Court of Claims and that the United States would hereafter obtain grazing fees for the use of the land. The Senate accepted this proposal but amended it so as to provide that in the suit to be brought by the Indians for the value of these lands no gratuities of any kind should be set off. This is eminently fair since, if the Government were now to take these lands and in a subsequent suit brought for their value set off against the Indians all gratuities made to them over the last 40 years, the latter would get nothing for their land. In reality such an arrangement would amount to confiscation of their lands. Since the Government wants these lands now for other purposes, it should pay in full for them. This is not a case of an ancient and stale claim for which the statute requiring the set-off of gratuities was designed. The amount involved is small, and no one has objected to this provision. It is not thought any proper objection can be made. (2) The Indians during the last 11 years, largely out of their own moneys, have purchased a substantial amount of bottom lands called "base properties" which entitle them to grazing privileges on the public domain. The bill as passed by the House contemplated the creation of a grazing reserve for the Ute Indians, to be administered by the Secretary of Interior and embrace an area which he would determine. In making such determination the Secretary was permitted to take into consideration the grazing privileges to which the Utes were entitled as well as the amount of lands needed for the proper conduct of a livestock enterprise based upon the "base properties." It was thought that the reserve to be set aside would include about 650,000 acres. The Senate has amended this provision so as to eliminate the creation of an Indian reserve and to provide instead that the extent of the grazing privileges of the Ute Indians shall be determined and administered by the Grazing Service under the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act. These amendments are not to the liking of the Indian Service or the Indians but are accepted by your conferees because the other parts of the bill are necessary and their acceptance is the only way to work out this complicated problem. These amendments do not deprive the Secretary of Interior or Commissioner of Indian Affairs of any jurisdiction they now have over tribal or individual lands of the Ute Indians. The provision that, in determining the grazing privileges of the Ute Indians, the Grazing Service under the supervision of the Secretary of Interior shall give recognition to the prior use and productive capacity of lands purchased for said Indians as of the time of their purchase was inserted to make sure that the Indians shall receive the maximum of grazing rights to which their "base properties" were entitled at the time of their purchase. The price which was paid for these "base properties" was arrived at by taking into consideration their connected grazing privileges on the public domain and it is not intended to diminish such privileges. In other respects the grazing rights of the Utes are to be determined and administered by the Grazing Service, under the supervision of course, of the Secretary of Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act. The Senate also added certain other amendments designed to facilitate the final determination of all disputes between the Ute Indians and the United States, most of which concern public lands. One of these permits the Indians to sue for the value of lands taken from them in the Territory of Utah under an unratified treaty, or treaties, in the 1860's. At that time the Government was very desirous of having the Ute Indians give up their ancestral lands in Utah and sought to negotiate a treaty to accomplish that purpose. The Indians on the other hand at first declined to enter into the treaty. At the request however of Brigham Young, a former Territorial Governor of great influence with the Indians, who was called in by the Indian agent and interceded on behalf of the Government, the Indians finally signed treaties by which they relinquished to the United States all of their lands as defined and set forth in the treaties. The Indians thereupon moved off their land onto a small reservation. Subsequently, however, the Senate failed to ratify the treaties. But the land which the Indians surrendered and relinquished was never returned to them nor were they paid therefor. The Senate felt that this wrong should now be righted and your conferees agree. Under the Senate amendment the Indians are rightfully permitted to sue now for the taking of their land, which is described in the treaties. The House on a previous occasion passed such legislation. It is favored by the Secretary of Interior; and the Attorney General in a letter dated July 11, 1940, to the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate stated that since it invoked a question of legislative policy he had no recommendation to make. Recovery is limited to the principal value of the land which is fixed at $1.25 per acre. This is the minimum price at which the Government, since 1820, has sold its public lands (R. S., sec. 2357). It is also the price which Congress, in a parallel case, fixed for the valuation of land taken from the Indians of California, under a series of 18 unratified treaties in 1852, some 13 years prior to the taking in this case (act of May 18, 1928, 45 Stat. 602). The Court of Claims as late as December 4, 1944, entered a judgment in behalf of the Indians of California based on this valuation. It is also the price which the Court of Claims, in a suit by the Ute Indians under a prior jurisdictional act in 1910, placed upon land taken from other Ute Indians in Colorado (45 C. Cls. 440). In the protection of the Government it was deemed wise to place this limitation of $1.25 on the land since some of it contained very valuable minerals. Moreover the amendment prevents any recovery for interest which, figured at 5 percent which was a small return of interest at the time of the taking, would now amount to four times the principal. Under these circumstances the very least that could be allowed, with any semblance of fairness to the Indians, was the price of $1.25 per acre. Another Senate amendment provides that, in any suit brought by any band of the Ute Indians against the United States, the latter shall not be permitted to take as a credit or a set-off any educational expenditures made for the Ute Indians. There are many reasons for this provision. One is that the United States by an agreement of 1880 and for other consideration provided that until such time as the Utes were able to support themselves the Federal Government would "establish and maintain schools in the settlement of the Utes, and make all necessary provision for the education of their children." Regardless of whether that agreement is still applicable, the Senate felt, and in this your conferees agree, that, since we have taken practically all of the Ute's lands and have thereby deprived them of their main means of livelihood by hunting, the least we could do as a Nation was to educate them without charging them therefor. In one sense, the education of the Indians, which was forced upon them, was for our own benefit because only by being educated could they maintain their existence on much smaller units of land, thereby enabling our Nation to have the balance of the land for its historic growth. This provision is also favored by the Secretary of the Interior, who in other proposed legislation had vigorously opposed the setting off of educational expenses. The Attorney General in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate dated July 11, 1940, stated that it invoked the question of legislative policy and that he therefore had no recommendation to make. The Senate also amended the bill so as to make it plain that the Indians shall be entitled to assert any claims which have accrued to them since they acknowledged themselves to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (December 30, 1849), except those claims which have been already litigated. The Ute Indians in 1910 obtained a prior judgment against the United States and it is not intended to reopen questions which were settled in that suit; but it is intended that the Indians shall have the right to assert any other claims whether they arose before or after the institution of that suit. The prior adjudication is to be given full scope as far as the matters there litigated and determined are concerned, but the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein are not to be conclusive as to claims not therein actually determined. The language of the Senate amendment was agreed to by the representatives of the Attorney General in a Senate hearing at which similar legislation was proposed. Your conferees have agreed to this amendment. The Senate amendment providing that in any suit jointly brought by more than one band of Ute Indians the court shall separately ascertain the share of the recovery to which each band is entitled and separately set off the amount of offsets chargeable to each band is a matter of fairness as between bands, some of which have secured far greater allowances from the Government than others. Though several of the bands may be required to join together in one suit, as a suit by the Confederated Bands of Utes, it is unfair to offset the same amount against each band, some of whom, as compared with other bands, have received very little help from the Government. As amended, each band will be charged with the offsets it has actually received. The other amendments added by the Senate are minor in nature and need no explanation. They are all, except as to the ones on which it is recommended the Senate recede, satisfactory to your conferees. The amendments on which it is recommended that the Senate recede would have restored to the Ute Indians approximately 30,000 acres of land, in addition to the 61,389.89 acres mentioned in the bill. Your conferees felt that only the 61,389.89 acres should be restored by this bill. It should be emphasized that the bill represents what is thought to be a fair compromise between all the conflicting interests and must be viewed as a whole. The Indians have strongly urged other claims which have been rejected in working out this compromise. Because of the opposition of the Department of Justice which defends all suits brought by Indian Tribes, the bill 1. Does not permit the Indians to go behind the judgment awarded them in 1910 by the Court of Claims (45 C. Cls. 440) so as to permit them to obtain "just compensation," including interest on the claims there determined. They were denied any such increment in that suit although the Supreme Court subsequently allowed it to other tribes (United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 299 U. S. 476; 304 U. S. 111; Klamath & Moadoc Tribe of Indians v. United States, 296 U. S. 244; 304 U. S. 119); 2. Does not permit the Indians to get interest on their unratified treaty claims; and 3. Does not prevent the Government from setting off against any judgment expenditures made for roads and highways. Because of the opposition of white stockmen living in Utah, the bill1. Does not create a reservation for the Utes of some 650,000 acres, as compensation for a reservation of approximately 2,000,000 acres taken from them shortly before the turn of the century; and 2. Does not restore to the Indians the entire 220,000 acres of land remaining unsold on the old Uintah Reservation. Considering these concessions that have been made to the Department of Justice-which in this case is essentially an advocate-and to the white stockmen, no one can properly say that the Indians are getting any more under this bill than that to which they are entitled. This bill finally settles and compromises conflicting interests which have required the attention of Congress and various agencies of the Government for 10 years. As now presented by the conferees, it represents the fruits of these years of painstaking study, and should now pass in order to avoid a further serious deterioration in the relations between the various groups of citizens affected. J. W. ROBINSON, Managers on the Part of the House. О |