Mr. SMITH. Well, it is just about the same as this: If I were at home I would not go hungry, but if I am in Washington and do not know anybody I would go hungry. Mr. WHITE. Just a question of being acquainted and being among your people? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. WHITE. What about the tribal organization? Did you not derive any benefits from that? If you were a renter of land what benefits did you get because of the organization? Mr. SMITH. It is so small that anybody who holds any ambition or who has any energy would not enter into a thing of that kind because the influence was so small. Mr. WHITE. I am trying to bring out the facts. Please do not give me arguments; just give me the facts. I am just trying to develop the situation we are dealing with in this bill. Most of these Indians are transients and have been detached from the ownership of their land, and they have to rent from private owners? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. And I assume, being such transients there is no incentive to build themselves up or do anything. They are simply tenant farmers raising crops on a share-crop basis? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. The Wheeler-Howard Act, as I understand it, was designed to meet that situation, putting the Indians back in the original state where they would have their flocks and stock and have a place to run them and do as they did before the white men disturbed them. How are you going to acquire those lands for them? Mr. COLLIER. By purchase. Mr. WHITE. Where are you going to get the money? Mr. COLLIER. $2,000,000 a year was authorized to be appropriated for that purpose. Mr. WHITE. The Government did make direct appropriations to go out and acquire land in these Indian areas? Mr. COLLIER. Yes, sir; the Government has been doing that. Mr. WHITE. The Indians seem to object to the rules and regulations put on by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they want to manage their own land. Mr. COLLIER. If they will organize, they will do that. The objection that is being registered here is that title to the land is in the Government for the benefit of the tribe or the individual, very much like a trust fund, and the idea seems to be that there is some limitation or stigma attached to having one's property held in trust for them, and that that distinguishes them from the ordinary run of people. Mr. WHITE. The question of the administration of these tribal lands is a big problem. Are these Indians allowed control over any allocation, and so forth? Mr. COLLIER. The tribe, through its council, has control over the assignment of land. The Indian has more than a life tenure in the land. He has an inheritable right in the land. In other words, it is exactly as in areas where you have never had an allotment act. In the Pueblo country, for example, where all of the land is assigned and Mr. WHITE. As to these floaters that are on the reservations, tenant farmers and share-croppers, what rights are attached to them, and what use could they make of this tribal land? Mr. COLLIER. Where it is grazing land, as you well know, it ought to be in blocks and used as a commons. Where it is farm land it would be individually owned. It is difficult to have a lot of small areas mixed up in a grazing range. That ought to be kept for the tribe. The agricultural land is usually better held and used as individual land. However, it is a question of the type of land that is available. All of that under the Reorganization Act can be done in the discretion of the tribe. In this particular case the tribe has never moved forward into adopting a constitution. All that their experience under the Reorganization Act has given them is that young people are being put through college on loans and $120,000 has either been spent on land or options taken for it. Otherwise the act does not exist for them. These The CHAIRMAN. We have three other witnesses to be heard. Indians are here from out of town, and they will have to leave today. Mr. WHITE. I will have to make my apologies for being late, but this is a very important subject, and I would like to go into it. Do you not see any benefits in having land so that these people could get back into the cattle business and have stock on communal property, and graze it there? Do you not think that would be a stabilizing influence? Mr. SMITH. If it had been feasible probably at an earlier date, I think that it would have been a fine thing for the Indians, when they were used to their communal living, but today these Indians I speak for are born and educated under the same conditions as any white man, and if you can get the white people to go into a communal form of life then you can get the Indians to do it. Mr. COLLIER. Do not white people graze their stock on national domain and in the national forests? Most of the grazing in the West is on the public domain. Mr. SMITH. But the enterprise is private. Mr. WHITE. With the majority of the Indians being detached from their land, and what you might call floating population, they have not any interest in it except the right to rent land. With the majority of them in that condition what benefits will they get if we rescind this act? What benefit will they get out of this change? Mr. SMITH. They have been able to live up to the present time without extinction, and they will at least regain their private liberties, their individual liberties, and they will not need to abide by the Reorganization Act, under the system that they are attempting to set up over all the Indians. They will have liberty and go their own way without this terrible restriction under the Reorganization Act. Mr. COLLIER. What liberty is taken away by the act, except your allotted lands are still held in trust? What liberty does it take away from you, and does it take away any property? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. COLLIER. What property does it take away? Mr. SMITH. I will give you an example of my own. I was born and raised on a piece of land, 200 acres of land which belonged to my grandfather. The land is still held in trust, and when I became able to farm, I operated on that farm. There was not enough land to keep me and supply my family and needs, and I had to rent 500 acres of land continually over a period of about 25 years. I rented that land from white people, Indians, or anyone I could rent it from. Then when this Reorganization Act come in why, they set up their own people in the Indian Office at Greenwood where the members of the communities, the men that are operating under those community groups, would have preference over an individual in the rental of lands, and I was an individual. So, the community met and bid against me, Indian against Indian for the other Indians in the community. Prior to this time the white man bid on land and the Indians could bid on land, and there was sort of a little preference given to the Indian. That is, prior to the new bill, but after that they seemed to eliminate all of the white people and take away all of the rights, and the competitive rights of an American citizen to rent Indian land, and they even took that competitive right away from the Indian. So, when I bid on this land which I lived on, and which I farmed on, and which I was raised on, why, the community came in and bid on the same piece of land against me. Mr. COLLIER. You mean on the Indian land? Mr. SMITH. Yes; on my grandfather's land; the land I was born and raised on. Mr. COLLIER. An Indian allotment? Mr. SMITH. Yes; an Indian allotment. Mr. WHITE. Did you acquire any right to the land by inheritance? Mr. SMITH. Subsequently I discovered that my grandfather had made me a will to the land. He died in the meantime, and I want to bring this point out. Mr. WHITE. That is a very important point. Mr. SMITH. When I made a bid on this land, I had been renting it. just like a white man, although it was my grandfather's land. I had been paying my money, and everything was in strict accordance with the laws I was under, and then when the communities came in there they set up, even though we have not got a constitution and bylaws, they set up something secret among themselves over the other Indian individuals. So, I went in and I bid on this land, and asked to be considered again for the next year. They said "Next year the communities have preference over your lands." I said "I have had preference on it all my life." I was born and raised there. What right have they to come in there and bid with me? They said "That is the new law." They said, "We are giving communities preference over individuals." I said, "I will tell you what I will do; I will give you $5 more this year on my lease, to get the land, pay you $5 more on my lease." I had a lot of controversy with the superintendent in trying to get this land. So he said I would get another chance on the land, and we were to have some more competitive bids on it. So, when I went back, the community got the land away from me, and I was raised $5 more, and $5 more the second time, and they took the land away from me. That is what is happening now under the set-up on the Yankton Reservation. Mr. WHITE. You had 200 acres of land and you leased a lot of Indian and other land around it? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. What rights did you have to that land outside of leasing it from the Indian agency? You had some inherited rights to that land? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I had inherited rights. It had been my grandfather's land. Mr. WHITE. When your last money was paid into the Indian Department Agency, after you had harvested your crops and you had paid the rental price for this land, did you get any return back from the money that was paid for the rental of that land, did it come back to you in any way? Mr. SMITH. I am very glad you asked that question, Mr. White. That land has not been probated, and the probate examiner up there has not come into that reservation. Mr. WHITE. Let us go into one phase of this 200 acres; you are an heir there, and how many other heirs are there? Mr. SMITH. I am the sole heir under the will of my grandfather. Mr. WHITE. You are the sole heir? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. Ordinarily that land is yours to do as you please with, or would be if it were outside of the reservation? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. But under tribal rule that is controlled by the tribe and although you have the right to it, and to farm your own land you must make a lease with the Indian agency? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. When this new deal came along certain groups could go in and make up an organization and call themselves tribal members and their rights as a community were superior to yours as an individual? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. They could bid for it, and if you both put in identical bids, if you both bid, say, $5 an acre, theirs would take preferences over yours, on account of being a community? Mr. SMITH. Yes; that is the idea, and that is true over the entire reservation. Mr. WHITE. There are certain practices of cliques, and schemes that are being worked whereby a man could be deprived of his own land? Mr. SMITH. Absolutely; and it is being done every day. Mr. WHITE. Let us assume they adopt your bid, and you get this land and put in a crop; what do you pay, cash rental or share crops; or what is the common practice? Mr. SMITH. The common practice is to give one-third of the crop. Mr. WHITE. To give one-third of the crop? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. WHITE. When wheat is threshed you take it down and give it to them? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. And that represents your rental for the use of that land? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. WHITE. What do they do with the rental money? Mr. SMITH. This land is still in probate status, and I cannot touch that money. Mr. WHITE. The money is piled up to the credit of the owner of the land? Mr. SMITH. It is just piling up. Mr. WHITE. It is piling up? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. WHITE. But you are deprived of the use of that land in which you are the chief party in interest? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. By this scheme that is being worked out under the Bureau of Indian Affairs there is an opportunity for a group or clique to get the land away from you? Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. In other words, they are given the preference, let us say. Mr. SMITH. Yes; they are given the preference over everybody else. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Clarence E. Foreman. We do not have a great deal of time remaining, but the Chair understands Mr. Foreman wants to proceed out of order. Mr. WHITE. Does he desire to speak on the bill under consideration? The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to talk about this bill or do you want to make some complaints against the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Mr. FOREMAN. I want to make some complaints against the administration. The CHAIRMAN. Then you may proceed only by unanimous consent. If you want to talk about the bill it is all right, but otherwise you can proceed only by unanimous consent. Mr. WHITE. If we have other people here who want to talk about the bill, Mr. Chairman, let us hear them first. The CHAIRMAN. You do not want to talk about the bill? Mr. FOREMAN. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then we will hear Mr. John St. Pierre. Mr. ST. PIERRE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You want to discuss the bill? Mr. ST. PIERRE. Yes, sir; I would like to. The CHAIRMAN. Since the time is so short, you are recognized for 5 minutes, with the understanding that you are going to discuss the bill. STATEMENT OF JOHN ST. PIERRE Mr. ST. PIERRE. I have been delegated down here by the Yankton Tribe of Indians, by a large proportion of the eligible voters living on our reservation, to ask exemption from the provisions of the Reorganization Act for the Yankton Indians. Now, one of the reasons for asking for this exemption is that our Indians do not believe that they can rebuild the practice or the right of individual enterprise or private enterprise under the Reorganization Act because, as Mr. Collier has said, the Government is buying land for the Indians, and, of course, that land remains or the title to it is within the United States Government. Now, that means that these Indians feel that they will be nothing more than tenants living |