Yankton Tribe-amend Wheeler-Howard Act

Mr. COLLIER. That is correct; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buckler, do you have any questions?

Mr. BUCKLER. The question you propounded to the Commissioner is what I had in mind. In reading the bill you would think this tribe was to get the same benefits the others had received.

The CHAIRMAN. You would think that they were left out of the original Reorganization Act and this was to include them, if you did not know what section 13 provides.

Mr. COLLIER. This would have the effect of putting them out. They are now in. It would be the same as though they voted themselves out, and that would be the end of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for your statement. We were glad to hear you. Mr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF CLEMENT SMITH, WAGNER, S. DAK.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you are here representing the Yankton Tribe of Indians of the State of South Dakota?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you sent as a delegate by the tribe to present their views, or do you come individually?

Mr. SMITH. We came down as delegates under a petition that was circulated on the reservation, with about, we estimate, a little over 90 percent of the Indians endorsing this delegation to come here and present their views before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. What is this group that sent you, Mr. Smith? Mr. SMITH. The Yankton Sioux Indians.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, the tribe as a whole sent you, or just some members that signed the petition?

Mr. SMITH. The petition was circulated to get the opinion of the Indians as to whether or not they would like to have a delegation represent them in Washington at this time, and under the heading of that petition they asked that this delegation appear before this committee, asking that the tribe be exempted.

The CHAIRMAN. How many members do you have in your tribe, approximately?

Mr. SMITH. Well, the official census roll-the closed roll, as we call it has 1,951 Indians on it.

The CHAIRMAN. How many signed this petition?

Mr. SMITH. That is under the Act of the Closed Rolls of 1894.

The CHAIRMAN. How many signed the petition? What we are trying to get at is how many Indians are you representing.

Mr. SMITH. We are representing the reservation Indians, comprising about 1,200 Indians.

The CHAIRMAN. How many signed the petition?

Mr. SMITH. 397.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to read this telegram and ask the witness what he has to say relative to it. This telegram was sent to Commissioner Collier :

SIR: We, the following undersigned officers of the organized Yankton Sioux Tribe, do hereby notify the Washington office that a group of Yankton Indians

of our tribe. They are in no way connected with tribal organizations or Indian reorganization groups.

Respectfully,

REHABILITATION COMMITTEE,

FRANK COURNEQUER.

LOUIS GROSSMAN.

SAMUEL GROSSMAN.

JOE GRABBING BEAR, Community Chairman.

JOSEPH PACKARD.

ORSEN PACKARD.

JOHN W. HARE.

NICK FREDERICK.

What do you have to say relative to that Mr. Smith? What we are trying to get at is, do you represent the Indians out there or do these people represent them?

Mr. SMITH. I say they represent the community groups and the set-up known as the Indian Reorganization Act, which, if taken in the matter of population, represents a very small group of those Indians. They operate under this act.

The CHAIRMAN. They voted to go into the Reorganization Act? Mr. SMITH. Everybody voted or had a privilege of voting.

The CHAIRMAN. They had more votes than you people did that opposed going into the Reorganization Act, is that it?

Mr. SMITH. I voted to go into it myself, and we all voted unanimously to have Indian reorganization. I think only 22 Indians voted against it.

The CHAIRMAN. But you are opposing it now?

Mr. SMITH. Today we are opposing it.

Mr. COLLIER. One hundred and seventy-one voted against it, and 248 voted for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it was not unanimous when 248 voted for it and 171 voted against it.

Mr. SMITH. These figures that show the accepting or voting against the act do not represent the vote that was actually tabulated for the thing. At that time there were known to be nonreservation Indians who were members of the tribe, and they voted, some of whom voted by mail, just as they saw fit, but those who did not vote, why, they compiled a tabulation out there as to how they stood on the act. I do not know just exactly where it occurred, but it seems to me there was an act, or some kind of a law which arose about that time, and made those Indians who did not vote as in favor of it, and therefore their names were counted as for the bill. So, we had in the neighborhood of 800 votes in favor of the act.

Mr. COLLIER. No.

Mr. DAIKER. May I explain that?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield to Mr. Daiker to make an explanation?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. DAIKER. In the original act, section 18, which provided for the election on the acceptance of the act, it provided that this act shall not apply to any reservation wherein a majority of the adult Indians voting at a special election duly called by the Secretary of the Interior shall vote against this election.

In other words a negative vote was the thing that was to carry and our solicitor ruled that unless a majority was against it, in other

150051-39-2

words, 51 percent would have to be against it, the act would apply, and that is what Mr. Smith has in mind, and that the nonvoter was construed as having voted for the act. Later on Congress changed that by the act of June 15, 1935, and required that the majority vote should control, provided 30 percent of the Indians voted. So, these figures are the actual vote that were cast.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed to make your statement, Mr. Smith,

Mr. SMITH. Do you have reference, Mr. Daiker, to the time that the bill was accepted on the reservation, or does this apply to the voting on the bylaws? There were two votes there.

Mr. DAIKER. That is right. The first vote is the vote on the acceptance or rejection of the act, and that is the figure that Mr. Collier read where two-hundred-and-some accepted, or voted yes, and 171 of them voted no. That is the vote on the act itself, and then later there was the vote on acceptance of the constitution and bylaws which was defeated.

Mr. COLLIER. By a vote of 244 for and 299 against.

Mr. DAIKER. That is on the vote in 1935 on the constitution, November 23, 1935.

Mr. SMITH. On the constitution and bylaws.

Mr. COLLIER. Yes; on the constitution and bylaws.

Mr. SMITH. But are we not speaking of the act when we take the act generally to make it apply to the Indians?

Mr. COLLIER. That was a vote of 248 for and 171 against it, and that is the actual vote cast at that time.

Mr. SMITH. Now, Mr. Chairman, in reference to that telegram, I wish to state frankly that we will admit as a tribe that they, through an organized body of men under the Reorganization Act, do represent the Indians on the Yankton Reservation, and that is the very reason why we are here to explain why we think that sort of an organiaztion is not quite the thing that the Yankton Indians should

have.

Mr. COLLIER. How do you mean under the act that they represent the organization? You have not a constitution under the act yet. Mr. SMITH. Nevertheless, Mr. Collier, let the Secretary step forward and bring an answer to that question. Mr. Chairman, I present this document.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that probably, if the gentleman does not object, that it would be well to have this letter appear in the record at this point, and that he may go ahead and make his statement. Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is very satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, this letter will be printed in the record at this point, and Mr. Smith may resume his statement. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. JOHN J. BACKUS,

ROSEBUD INDIAN AGENCY, Rosebud, S. Dak., March 13, 1939.

Assistant Superintendent, Yankton Subagency, Greenwood, S. Dak. DEAR MR. BACKUS: With relation to the alleged tribal council elected by a certain group of Yankton Indians on September 22, 1938, I wish to advise that the matter has been referred to the Indian Office for their consideration as to whether or not such council would be officially recognized. I am in receipt of a letter under date of February 18, in which reference is made to office letter

1937. This letter says in part: "This is to advise you that the aforesaid organization, headed by Mr. Smith, is not a properly constituted tribal body and is not recognized as such by this Office. You are therefore instructed not to deal with this body in the matter of effecting the rehabilitating trust agreements.

In the present emergency it is suggested that if the Indians residing in each of the three main districts of the reservation wish to form community organizations apart from the reorganization act, this office will recognize such bodies in the matter of the rehabilitation program. Such bodies might also serve a useful purpose in advising you in making land assignments.

The Office also refers to a letter written to Mr. Eugene High Rock under date of October 1, 1937. In this letter, Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman refers to his letter of April 21, 1937, and we quote therefrom: "This Office is ready to recognize any community organization on the Yankton Reservation in any and all matters pertaining to the community welfare and progress."

Also letter of February 18, 1939, reads in part as follows: "You will find enclosed copy of letter to you under date of April 21, 1937, signed by Mr. Zimmerman, Assistant Commissioner, and also copy of a letter of October 21, 1937, addressed to Mr. Eugene High Rock, Ravinia, S. Dak., signed by Mr. Zimmerman, Assistant Commissioner. The Office policy stated in these two letters in reference to community organizations and their authority in connection with the rehabilitation program and in the assignment of lands purchased with Indian reorganization funds is our policy now as we see no good reason for changing such procedure. We have carefully considered the facts stated in your letter and do not believe that we would be justified in recognizing the tribal council elected on September 22, 1938."

There are enclosed herewith several copies of this letter and I am requesting that you mail a copy to each of the members of the alleged council, to the chairman of each community, and to the members of the rehabilitation committee. Yours very truly,

C. R. WHITLOCK, Superintendent.

The CHAIRMAN. You may explain it if you care to, as you go along, Mr. Smith. Proceed, please.

Mr. SMITH. The telegram which was sent to you represents that very small minority or group of Indians known as community Indians, and they have attempted to establish colonies up there, and they are operating-in fact, they take care of all of the relief matters under that jurisdiction, and they make recommendations for everything that concerns the Indians through their superintendent, and the fact that they represent such a small group of the Indians brings on the hardship that we wish to follow up with evidence that we have to present here. So, we challenge the telegram to this extent, that while they may be in absolute authority under the new administration act for the Department, they are not acting for the Indians as far as representing the majority of the Indians.

Mr. COLLIER. Would you explain, Mr. Smith, are these community organizations open to the membership of everybody in the community, or are they closed bodies that do not let other people in?

Mr. SMITH. The intent is to have it absolutely open to everybody, but the amount of land and the amount of money that is available to carry out the purpose of those units is so small that they cannot reach out and help. It is not a drop in the bucket concerning the large group of Indians there. Therefore those that operate under it are the only few Indians who can get any advantage of the set-up.

Mr. COLLIER. But the membership is open to all?

Mr. SMITII. Yes; it is intended to be open to all, but may I say at that point, Mr. Collier, because of the unlimited authority granted by the Department to those Indians they have the power to recommend and the power to assume that responsibility which regulates

words, 51 percent would have to be against it, the act would apply. and that is what Mr. Smith has in mind, and that the nonvoter was construed as having voted for the act. Later on Congress change that by the act of June 15, 1935, and required that the majority vote should control, provided 30 percent of the Indians voted. So, these figures are the actual vote that were cast.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed to make your statement, M. Smith.