This bill has the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, as set forth in the following letters, which are appended hereto and made a part of this report:

Hon. LYNN J. FRAZIER,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs,

Washington, March 8, 1930.

United States Senate.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request of December 5, 1929, for a report on S. 2231, to reserve certain lands on the public domain in Arizona for the use and benefit of the Papago Indians. I transmit herewith a memorandum from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. After a review of the proposed measure, I agree with Commissioner Rhoads.

Very truly yours,

RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary.

January 25, 1930.

Memorandum for the Secretary.

This is in reference to S. 2231, a bill to reserve certain lands on the public domain in Arizona for the use and benefit of the Papago Indians, and for other purposes.

The Papagos are nontreaty Indians, consisting of 3,990 adults and 1,300 children, making a total of 5,290 Indians, who depend entirely upon cattle raising for their occupation and means of obtaining a livelihood.

Originally, their reservation was established by Executive order of January 14, 1916. However, it was found that a strip about 6 miles wide running generally east and west through the entire reservation thus created, had been applied for by the State of Arizona under its school land grants prior to the creation of the reservation; also a number of white people had initiated valid rights to certain tracts within the strip under the public land laws.

Consequently, by Executive order of February 1, 1917, the above referred to Executive Order was revoked and the then existing reservation was revised so that the "6-mile strip" was eliminated therefrom, leaving a reservation for the Indians consisting of 3 separate tracts, 2 large and 1 small, which are inadequate for the needs of the Indians in connection with ranging their cattle. The two large tracts are separated from each other by the above referred to "6-mile strip" and the small tract is separated by the privately owned Santa Rosa Ranch and some public land.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to return to the Indians such portions of the "strip" as may be possible, through relinquishment by the State of its holdings; the acquisition of the remaining public land in the strip, and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Ranch, and the purchase of certain privately owned land located within the strip. It is also proposed to acquire the privately owned land adjacent to the reservation on the east, known as the Santa Rosa Ranch, in order to round out the reservation.

The Papago Indians have, since the creation of the present reservation in 1917, been insistent that the so-called 6-mile strip be closed up and made a part of the reservation, and have also manifested a strong desire to have the privately owned Santa Rosa Ranch acquired as part of the reservation, together with the adjoining public land. The attached map shows how the three tracts composing the present reservation are related to each other with respect to distance and location.

During the past few years negotiations were entered into tentatively by the superintendent with several of the private landowners whereby their lands, buildings, and other improvements and equipment were valued and appraised at a total figure of $165,000, representing the value of the privately owned property actually needed to help place the Indian land holdings contiguously.

Section 1 of the bill contemplates reserving all the vacant, unreserved, and undisposed of public lands within the "strip" and in certain townships adjacent to the reservation and the Santa Rosa Ranch on the east for the use and occupancy of the Papago Indians, and will, in effect, constitute an addition to the present reservation.

However, according to correspondence received from the superintendent, the vacant public lands in township 15 south, range 4 west are not wanted, but the vacant undisposed of lands n certain other townships described below are

desired by the Indians. Therefore, section 1 of the bill should be amended to meet the desires of the Indians as follows:

Strike out, on page 1, line 9, the words "townships 14 and", and on page 2 line 1, strike out "15 south, range 4 west", and substitute therefor "township 14 south, range 4 west," and add immediately thereafter the following: "townships 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 south, range 7 east, townships 14, 15, and 16 south, range 6 east, and townships 14 and 15 south, range 8 east".

It is further suggested that the word "public" be inserted on page 1, line 3, immediately after the word "of".

Section 2 of the bill contemplates an appropriation of $165,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be used by the Secretary of the Interior in the purchase and acquisition of title to certain lands, improvements and equipment now owned or held by certain specified individuals and other persons located adjacent to the present reservation. The lands and improvements involved are within the "6-mile strip", and also include the so-called Santa Rosa ranch. The effect of this proposed appropriation and the acquisition of the privately owned lands within the strip and also the Santa Rosa ranch will tend to coordinate the three tracts composing the reservation and will work to the benefit of the Indians, in that they will be enabled to range their stock over the entire reservation without trespassing upon privately owned lands, and will operate to put an end to the encroachment by the white cattle owners on Indian reservation land. Section 2 also contemplates that the State of Arizona will relinquish its holdings within the "6-mile strip" in favor of the Indians and select in lieu thereof other tracts of public land. However, no provision has been made in the bill to allow the State to make the required relinquishments and lieu selections.

In connection with the sum of money required for the purchase of the privately owned lands, as referred to in section 2 of the bill, it is believed that instead of specifying any specific property to be purchased, the appropriation should be of a general nature to be expended in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. It is also believed that section 2 of the bill should be further revised to the extent of providing authority for the State to relinquish its holdings within the "6-mile strip" and at the same time grant the State authority to select other land in lieu thereof.

It is therefore recommended that section 2 be entirely eliminated and rewritten, as follows:

"SEC. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, from any funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $165,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be used by the Secretary of the Interior in his discretion in the purchase and acquiring of title to certain privately owned lands, improvements, and equipment located adjacent to the present Papago Reservation: Provided, That in the event title to any privately owned land is acquired by purchase, the land so purchased shall become part of the Papago Indian Reservation: And provided further, That the State of Arizona may relinquish such tracts within the townships referred to in section 1 of this act, as it may see fit, in favor of the Papago Indians, and shall have the right to select other unreserved and nonmineral public lands within the State of Arizona equal in area to that relinquished, said lieu selections to be made in the same manner as is provided for in the enabling act of June 20, 1910." (36 Stat. L. 557.) I therefore recommend that the bill be revised as suggested and enacted into law, as obviously it will be greatly beneficial to the Papago Indians. C. J. RHOADS, Commissioner.

APRIL 24, 1930.

Hon. CARL HAYDEN,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: This is in reference to your letter dated April 18, 1930, addressed to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs relative to S. 2231, a bill "to reserve certain lands on the public domain in Arizona, for the use and benefit of the Papago Indians, and for other purposes."

The excerpt taken from the letter which you recently received from Mr. John H. Page of Phoenix, Ariz., as quoted in your letter has been carefully considered and in view thereof this department would not object to amending the bill so as to protect the equities of the private land owners within the area involved in section 1 of the bill.

It is, therefore, recommended that the bill be further amended as follows: After the word Arizona", line 5, page 2, change the colon to a comma and insert: 'whenever all privately owned lands within said addition have been purchased and acquired as hereinafter authorized".

Very truly yours,

O

RAY LYMAN WILBUR.

Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 4235]

The Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4235) to prohibit the sending of unsolicited merchandise through the mails, having carefully considered the same, report the bill back to the Senate with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The text of the bill is as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter unsolicited merchandise which any person desires to send for the purpose of sale to the addressee shall not be accepted for mailing. The term "person," when used in this act, means an individual, partnership, corporation, or association.

SEC. 2. If such unsolicited merchandise is deposited in the mails t shall not be delivered to the addressee but, under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe, shall be returned to the sender charged with postage due at double the regular rates to be collected from him upon delivery. On failure of the sender to pay such return postage the matter shall be disposed of as other dead matter.

The object of the bill is to abate a general nuisance and annoyance to the public known as the buy it or return it plan of selling merchandise through the mails. The enactment of such legislation was recommended to the Seventieth Congress by the then Postmaster General in the following letter:

Hon. W. W. GRIEST,

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 9, 1928.

Chairman Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. GRIEST: I have your letter of the 4th instant inclosing a copy of bill H. R. 351, to prohibit the sending of unsolicited merchandise through the mails. This bill was introduced by Mr. Watson. You also inclose a copy of bill H. R. 3991, a bill upon the same subject, introduced by Mr. Watson in the last Congress.

The bill H. R. 351 makes some desirable changes from the provisions of the first bill and is approved by me.

Your attention is invited to what is said in my annual report for 1927, at pages 58 and 59, on the subject of sending unsolicited parcels of merchandise through the mails for sale. This statement described the condition as it exists in the

service.

Sincerely yours,

HARRY S. NEW, Postmaster General.

The following is an extract from the Annual Report of the Postmaster General for 1927, above referred to:

UNSOLICITED PARCELS OF MERCHANDISE SENT THROUGH THE MAIL FOR SALE

The practice of using the mails for the purpose of sending unsolicited articles through the mails for sale is increasing to an extent which demands legislation prohibiting the same. Under this practice articles and merchandise are sent to addresses unsolicited and in the absence of any order therefor for the purpose of sale and with the request to transmit a price therefor. This places upon the addressee a burden of the receipt and attention thereto without any solicitation on his part and the necessity of returning the article or remitting for it, neither of which he is under obligation to do, or of ignoring the matter altogether. Following this he is subject to receipt of follow-up letters from the sender, all of which are annoying and some of which are abusive and threatening. The claim made by some that postage will be guaranteed or inclosed for the return of the article does not relieve the situation materially. It still puts the burden upon the recipient of keeping or returning the article, which is an uninvited annoyance to him.

The department receives many bitter complaints from individuals who receive such merchandise and from retail merchants, also from organizations such as merchants' associations, chambers of commerce, and others.

It

The Postal Service is a public service for the legitimate use of the people. should not be made the instrument of a practice which works an uninvited hardship or inconvenience to recipients of mail matter subjecting them to annoyance and abuse. They have equal rights with the senders.

The attached letters show that Hon. Walter F. Brown, the present Postmaster General, has also favorably recommended the enactment of this legislation:

Hon. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS,

United States Senate.

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., May 6, 1929.

MY DEAR SENATOR PHIPPS: Referring to your letter of the 26th ultimo, requesting my views on S. 610, being a bill to prohibit the sending of unsolicited merchandise through the mails, I have to report as follows:

Legislation upon this subject has been pending before Congress for several years. On March 3, 1926, hearings were held before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3991, which had been introduced by Representative Watson, of Pennsylvania. This bill covered the subject now embraced in S. 610 and in addition had a penal provision. The views of my predecessor upon that bill were contained in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads of the House, dated January 26, 1926, such letter being printed on page 36 of the hearings above-mentioned. The views of the then Postmaster General were also incorporated in his annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1927, on page 58.

Representative Watson introduced a new bill upon the subject (H. R. 351) in the Seventieth Congress upon which hearings were held on February 2 and 3, 1928. On pages 1 and 2 of the hearings will be found a letter in which the Postmaster General said that H. R. 351 provided desirable changes from the provisions of the first bill. My predecessor also renewed his recommendation for appropriate legislation upon the subject on page 55 of his annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1928. I am transmitting herewith copies of the annual reports mentioned.