TABLE 3.-Appeals to Court of Claims, 1962-66 Nooksack, 1-62 (No. 46)---- Cherokee Freedmen, 2-62 (No. 123). Kickapoo, 4-64 (No. 317, No. 314-C).. Nez Perce, 5-64 (No. 175-B)....... Yankton Sioux, 8-64 (No. 11-A, No. 138) .... Emigrant New York, 2-65 (No. 75)...... Minn. Chippewа, 3-65, 4-65 (No. 18-B, No. 18-N).. Hannahville, et al., 5-65 (No. 28, No. 29-D). Cit. Potawatomi, et al., 6-65 (No. 217, 15-K). Snoqualmie, 7-65 (No. 93)... Peoria, 8-65 (No. 65)... Iowa, 9-65 (No. 135) Lipan Apache, 10-65 (No. 22-C).. See footnotes at end of table, p. 78. TABLE 3.-Appeals to Court of Claims, 1962-66-Continued Case and No. Seminole, 11-65 (No. 73, No. 151). 1 Appeal withdrawn. Dismissed. None filed. Senator McGOVERN. Our next witness is Mr. Harry Anderson, Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management, Department of the Interior. STATEMENT OF HARRY ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES OFFICER, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied by Mr. James Officer, Associate Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Department of the Interior strongly favors legislation to extend the life of the Indian Claims Commission. However, we believe that S. 307 should not be enacted in its present form. The Indian Claims Commission Act was passed by the Congress in 1946 to recognize the claims of the Indian people against the United States. At the time of its enactment, I doubt that many members anticipated that 20 years later over half of the Commission's docketed cases would be undecided. We can thus readily understand the concern for the expeditious disposal of pending claims which prompted Chairman Jackson to introduce this bill. Nonetheless, we do not feel that S. 307 contains adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the Indian people. Frankly, since we are not involved in the proceedings before the Commission, we are not in a position to comment on the reasons for the delays that have been encountered in the handling of pending claims. We believe that before acting on this bill the committee should explore this matter fully with the Commission, the Department of Justice, and the claims attorneys for the Indians. Hopefully, the result of the committee's deliberations will be legislation that will facilitate the orderly and timely disposal of claims and afford just treatment to the Indian claimants. The Department of the Interior's primary concern, as exemplified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs' involvement in approving compromise settlements, is to see that the Indians are treated fairly. It is our opinion that S. 307 would deprive some of them of their day in court. In this regard we are particularly concerned with two provisions of the bill. First, we do not think it is equitable to provide, as does S. 307, for the dismissal of a claim with prejudice, if the claimant is unable or unwilling to proceed with trial after it has received one 6-month extension for good cause shown. This provision is unduly harsh and could result in the unjust dismissal of cases. As an alternative, we have suggested an amendment providing that "the Commission may grant further continuance when justified by facts that are beyond the control of the claimant." Secondly, we are opposed to the provision that an order of the Commission dismissing a claim under the above section shall be final and not subject to review by any court. This provision would preclude the correction of arbitrary and capricious action and is inconsistent with our normal judicial processes, which provide for at least one appellate review. In addition, we have a number of technical amendments which are enumerated in the Department's report. Finally, we would like to call the committee's attention to the fact that some tribes with pending claims are not represented by attorneys. Before dismissal of claims in these dockets, the Commission should consider carefully the reasonableness of the efforts made by the tribe to obtain an attorney. It might even use the authority granted it by section 13 of the act. That section requires the Commission to establish an Investigation Division to make a complete and thorough search for all evidence affecting each claim referred to it by the Commission. In the event the Investigation Division finds a claim has sufficient merit to warrant a continuance of the trial date, the Commission should be authorized to do so for a reasonable time to enable the claimant to hire an attorney and prepare for trial. At the present time, there are six groups or tribes which have never had an attorney. These are all in Alaska. Recently two Alaskan tribes who formerly did not have counsel have now engaged such services. There are also 13 tribes in which attorney contracts have expired. The BIA has been active over the years in attempting to have tribes engage attorneys. In some cases, the potential claims appear small, and others apparently don't appear to be well supported and minimum interest has resulted. However, in a number of cases active negotiation is underway by the tribes to secure new contract attorneys. I would also like to mention that as to funding or providing loans to tribes for expert assistance for the preparation and trial of claims, the BIA has made a number of loans and have approved applications where needed. Providing the $450,000 item included in the 1968 budget is approved, we believe sufficient funds will be available for this phase of claims processing. Senator McGOVERN. Mr. Anderson, first of all, there are two points here on which I just want to comment briefly. On your first page you suggest the committee should explore these matters under consideration with the Indian Claims Commission, with the Department of Justice, and with the claims attorneys for the Indians. That, of course, is the purpose for these hearings and other investigations that the committee will certainly hold. I can assure you that those things will be done. You also make the point that the Department is opposing the bill in its present form, largely because of your concern that the Indians be treated fairly. I think it goes without saying that the major purpose of this legislation and the purpose of these hearings is to try to protect the interests of the Indians in getting more expeditious handling of these claims. They, after all, more than any other group, have a major interest in seeing that the claims are processed and handled as quickly as possible. As I understand it, that is the basic thrust behind this legislation. I am sure the members of this committee share the concern of the Department that the welfare of the Indians and their affairs be properly protected. I noticed in your statement that you make reference to the Investigation Division. You have suggested that the Commission might make use of that authority. Do I understand that has never been done they have not used the authority in the act to set up and operate an Investigation Division? Mr. ANDERSON. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. Senator McGOVERN. Do you know why that authority has not been used? Mr. ANDERSON. No, I do not. Senator McGOVERN. It would seem to me that might be one way to expedite the work of the Commission and bring some of these cases up for consideration. Mr. ANDERSON. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, this has budgetary implications. I don't know if the Commission has the funds to carry out such work or not. But it appears to me that this would be one way to attack or get action on some of these claims that now are not serviced by attorneys-one way to have an evaluation as to the substance of these claims. Senator McGOVERN. You have suggested an amendment reading: "The Commission may grant further continuance when justified by facts that are beyond the control of the claimant." I was under the impression that there was language of that kind in the bill. Am I mistaken about that? Mr. ANDERSON. There is provision for one continuance, as I understand it. Senator McGOVERN. Isn't there a provision in the legislation that even after a 6-month extension, there are circumstances under which further extension can be granted? Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is only in the case of a final compromise. Senator MCGOVERN. I see. That is limited to a compromise settlement. Mr. ANDERSON. The thought there, Mr. Chairman, would be that possibly an Indian attorney might be sick or may die, or there could be some other valid reason why there should be a continuance. It appears this would be left with good cause to the Commission to grant an additional extension. Senator McGOVERN. Does the Department of the Interior, more specifically the Indian Bureau, ever take any responsibility for encouraging tribes to secure counsel and to move ahead on these claims? Is that within your jurisdiction? Mr. ANDERSON. Senator, what we have here is a client-attorney relationship, and the Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not get in between the two. However, the Bureau does attempt to negotiate or assist the tribes in securing counsel. Once the contract is approved, then it is between the tribe and the counsel as far as the processing of the claim. Senator MCGOVERN. In the case of the claims where there is no counsel, do you take steps to get the tribes to engage counsel? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, we do. This goes on constantly. In fact, I mentioned 13, but I was informed this morning that one of the 13, we feel, has engaged counsel. These are the 13 where contracts have expired. A short time ago, two tribes in Alaska secured counsel. Senator McGOVERN. Through some leadership on the part of the Bureau? Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Officer, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has worked closely with this program for a number of years, and he might be able to fill us in more on the details of just what the Bureau's activities are in this area. |