། Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. J. Res. 163] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. J. Res. 163) to carry out certain obligations to certain enrolled Indians under tribal agreement, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with the following amendment: On page one, line 7, after the word "taxation" and before the word "and" insert the following language, "from which land the restrictions have been removed". This bill has the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior, as set forth in the following letter, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report: Hon. LYNN J. Frazier, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With further reference to your request of April 5 for a report on S. J. Res. 163, which would carry out certain obligations to certain enrolled Indians under tribal agreement, there is transmitted herewith a memorandum from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. After a review of the proposed measure, I agree with Commissioner Rhoads. Very truly yours, Memorandum for the Secretary. RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, This refers to the request of April 5, 1930, from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for a report on S. J. Res. 163, to carry out certain obligations to enrolled Indians under tribal agreement. The purpose of the resolution is to allow individual Indians who are barred by statutory limitation one year from the date of the passage of the act within which to file claims for refund of any Federal income tax or other Federal tax illegally paid by such Indians. It is a familiar rule of law that laches and statutes of limitation do not run against the Government; and in an opinion rendered August 14, 1924 (34 Opins. Atty. Gen. 302–306) the Attorney General held that the time limitation provided by Federal statutes within which claims for refund of income taxes should be filed, does not apply in cases of restricted Indians. Some of our Indians, particularly of the Five Civilized Tribes, are guaranteed exemption from the payment of taxes on certain lands by agreements made with the Federal Government pursuant to the allotment of their lands to individual members of the tribes and the closing up of tribal affairs; and it has been held that such exemption is a vested contractual property right which can not be legally denied the Indian by Congress. (Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665.) Such lands are thus tax-exempt for a specified period; and it follows that the income therefrom during the period of exemption from taxation is also nontaxable pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (157 U. S. 429; 158 U. S. 601.) By section 1 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stats. 312), the restrictions were removed from the tax-exempt lands of a large number of allottees or members of the Five Civilized Tribes and the restrictions from the lands of other individual Indians have since been removed by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to law. Federal income taxes have been collected from some of these Indians, since the removal of the restrictions from their lands, on income received from the tax-exempt lands; and in such cases it has been recently held by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, that claims for refund of such taxes must be filed by the Indians within the time prescribed by the general income-tax statutes. In this connection see the case of United States v. Richards (27 Fed. (2d) 284). There it was held that notwithstanding it was conceded by counsel for the Government that the land and income therefrom were not subject to taxation and that the tax was illegally and erroneously assessed, the bar of the statute could not be escaped. It appears therefore that some additional legislation is necessary in order to fully protect the class of Indians mentioned, in their rights to tax exemptions guaranteed by formal agreements with the Government. In order to make it clear that S. J. Res. 163 is not intended to apply to cases of restricted Indians against whom the statutory limitation does not run, I suggest that it be amended by inserting after the word "taxation" in line 7, page 1, the following: "from which land the restrictions have been removed". If so amended I would recommend the enactment of S. J. Res. 163. O C. J. RHOADS, Commissioner Mr. ASHURST, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 134] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 134) authorizing an appropriation for the purchase of land for the Indian colony near Ely, Nev., and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with a recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. 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, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR FRAZIER: I have your request for my opinion on S. 134, a bill authorizing an appropriation of $1,600 for purchase of land and water service for an Indian community near Ely, Nev. I have the honor to transmit for your information a memorandum submitted to me by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs which you will note is favorable to the enactment of the bill. I have the honor to concur in recommending that the proposed bill be enacted. Very truly yours. RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Memorandum for the Secretary. This will refer further to S. 134, authorizing an appropriation of $1,600 for the purchase of a 10-acre tract of land occupied by the Indian colony near Ely. Nev., and to connect the camp with the city water supply. For many years about 10 Indian families have lived on this tract, which belongs to the Ely Securities Co., the manager of which states that he will sell the land to the Government for the Indians at $100 per acre, or $1,000 for the tract. Under present conditions the Indians occupy the land merely on sufferance and, of course, have no assured tenure, which discourages any effort by them to improve their condition and makes it impossible for the Government to spend any money for this purpose. Three Indian families live on another tract; also in private ownership farther away; and if this land is bought they will probably remove thereto. The Indians have no income or resource except the small wages which they can earn by working for the residents of that vicinity, whenever the opportunity arises. The camp has no water supply, and this makes it necessary that the Indians go long distances for water or impose upon the local people therefor. Without an adequate water supply it is impossible to maintain proper sanitary conditions in the camp. Under the circumstances, it is deemed advisable to connect the camp with the city water system, the main pipe of which is about 300 feet away, and erect a stand pipe near the center of the village at an estimated cost of $600 for the material and part of the labor as the Indians have agreed to help in the work. It will also be necessary to pay the water rental to the city at the rate of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons, or $10 per month for 25,000 gallons which the report indicates will be amply sufficient. It is therefore recommended that the bill be given favorable consideration. CHAS. H. BURKE, Commissioner APRIL 23, 1930. Hon. CHARLES J. RHOADS, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. RHOADS: I have been requested to obtain additional informstion for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs on Senate bill No. 134, a bill authorizing an appropriation of $1,600 for purchase of land and water service for an Indian community near Ely, Nev. 1. The number of Indians which will be benefited by the purchase of this land? 2. To what tribe of Indians do these Indians belong? 3. Why did these Indians leave their reservation? 4. What advantage do these Indians receive by remaining in this camp near Nev.? Ely, 5. Any further information which will assist the committee in its consideration of this bill. Respectfully. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. LYNN J. FRAZIER, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR: The receipt is acknowledged of Mr. Skeels's letter of April 23, requesting additional information for use of the committee in connection with S. 134, authorizing an appropriation of $1,600 for the purchase of land for the Indian colony at Ely, Nev. This band numbers about 150 Indians of the Shoshone Tribe. They never had a reservation, but comprise one of the numerous bands similarly situated residing in different parts of the State. The able-bodied members of the tribe, both men and women, support themselves largely by working for residents of the town. They have lived within that vicinity for many years, have become very much attached to the location, and it would probably be difficult to get them to leave. At any rate they would have no place to go which would improve their condition, as they do not have tribal rights on any established reservation. Hence if they went elsewhere, they would be no better situated than at present. They occupy privately owned land merely on sufferance, without any assured tenure. Accordingly the purchase of the tract and the installation of sewer and water systems would seem to be the best thing to do under all the circumstances of the case. Sincerely yours, J. HENRY SCATTERGOOD, о Assistant Commissioner. 71ST CONGRESS 2d Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 630 RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THE CASA GRANDE RUINS NATIONAL MONUMENT MAY 8, 1930.-Ordered to be printed Mr. ASHURST, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 4085] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4085) to authorize the use of a right of way by the United States Indian Service through the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in connection with the San Carlos irrigation project, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with a recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. This bill was introduced at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, as set forth in the following letter, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. LYNN J. Frazier, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR FRAZIER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of proposed legislation to authorize the use of a right of way by the Indian Service through the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Arizona, in connection with the San Carlos irrigation project. It has been found desirable in order to reach a high point of land on the south side of sec. 9, T. 5 S., R. 8 E., of G. and S. R. M., adjoining the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument on the north, to run a canal along the State highway curve through the northeast corner of section 16 of the same township and range and situated within the national monument. Under the provisions of existing law it has been held that there is no authority for administratively authorizing the use of the land in the national monument for such purposes and in consequence thereof special authority from Congress is requested. It is reported that this lateral which is necessary to irrigate 320 acres of land could be constructed at a cost of approximately $500 provided the right of way across the national monument can be secured. Otherwise, it will be necessary to construct a pipe line 2,200 feet in length, or a built-up ditch with the necessary |