and would know the purpose they would want to use it for. Occasionally you would find some in that class who had nice homes and would want to use the money for something else.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Case.

Mr. CASE. Mrs. Von Bulow, the original basis of your claim lies and is based upon the fact that certain lands were promised you by the treaties?

Mrs. VON BULOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASE. And the money that you are asking for is in payment of that land?

Mrs. VON BULOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASE. It is not a loan or a special grant?

Mrs. VON BULOW. No, sir; it is something which is coming to us, and we feel that it should come to us. It should come irrespective of whether or not some are competent, or incompetent. We know that when white people have something coming to them the judge does not ask if they are competent, but hands it out to them and then it is theirs.

Mr. CASE. In regard to the 18 treaties that you mentioned, were those treaties made with your chiefs by representatives of the United States Government?

Mrs. VON BULOW. Yes, sir; and then they were put aside for about 80 years. They were made in 1851 or 1852, and the jurisdictional act was our day in court. Up to now they have been coming here, that is, these white men have been coming here to try to get something for the Indians. They say they have, but all the time they have been trying to add attorneys to our bills, so that consequently we never got anywhere, so the Indians have now sent their own representatives here to tell the story.

Mr. CASE. The treaties have never been ratified by the Senate?

Mrs. VON BULOw. Yes; I think I have my legal adviser here. I think he could answer that question better than I could. The acts when they passed in 1928 they were more or less ratified, and we were basing our suits under that.

Mr. CASE. But as to a formal ratification by the Senate, there was no ratification?

Mrs. VON BULOW. Mr. Johnson could answer that.

Mr. JOHNSON. There was no formal ratification of the treaties by the Senate at that time.

Mr. CASE. But the treaties were negotiated by duly accredited representatives of the United States Government?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; they were negotiated by accredited representatives of the United States Government.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crawford.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mrs. Von Bulow, if this distribution is made, if this legislation goes through as you propose, your people would still be wards of the Government, would they not?

Mrs. VON BULOW. Well, in one sense they would be, but by a special act of Congress they were made citizens and voters, but they would still seem to have that dual role of being citizens and wards, so we really do not know what we are.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, after this money had been distributed on a per-capita basis and had been spent for consumers' goods and the like, if your people then became in need the Government would still be responsible for their care, would it not?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, might I answer that question.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF C. M. JOHNSON, ESQ., LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, INC., LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. JOHNSON. In answer to the question of Mr. Crawford, I would like to state that, as I understand it at the present time, the Government considers Indians who have trust estates in California or elsewhere as wards of the Government; also all such Indians that are living on reservations under the supervision of agents; but as I look at it, if there is an individual distribution made and each Indian was put onto his own piece of land or in his own home and given his own cash, then he would no longer be a ward of the Government-it would take him out from under that. Any Indian today who owns land or his home in town is not a ward. In California today more than 15,000 of the 23,000 Indians are not considered wards, and if they got their distribution individually they would automatically cease to be wards.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I would like to find out what is the total amount of money involved that the Indians of California claim?

Mrs. VON BULOW. Well, our land was appraised-do you mean the total amount of money?

Mr. O'CONNOR. That you are claiming on behalf of the Indians? Mrs. VON BULOW. $50,000,000.

Mr. O'CONNOR. And how many Indians are involved?

Mrs. VON BULOW. How many Indians?

Mr. O'CONNOR. Yes.

Mrs. VON BULOW. Twenty-three thousand.

Mr. O'CONNOR. How many Indians would share in this?

Mrs. VON BULOW. All of them.

Mr. JOHNSON (interposing). Twenty-three thousand.

Mrs. VON BULOW. Twenty-three thousand.

Mr. O'CONNOR. That is $1,500; now do you claim that on the basis of some treaties negotiated by the United States?

Mrs. VON BULow. Yes; I do.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Have the treaties been acted upon by the Indians, and by the United States Government, and ratified?

Mr. JOHNSON. May I answer the question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The attorney will be recognized to answer the question.

Mr. JOHNSON. The President at the request of the Legislature of the State of California advised that they should not be ratified and the Senate refused to ratify them, but in 1928 the Jurisdictional Act was passed, allowing the Indians to sue for just compensation promised in the treaties, including the lands described therein, at $1.25 an acre, and in law we considered that, a ratification of the

treaty for the purpose of giving payment for the things that were promised in the treaties. It does not mean they would be given the land but would be given compensation.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Was such a suit brought?

Mr. JOHNSON. Suit was brought by the attorney general of the State of California, I think, something like in 1929 or 1930, after this Jurisdictional Act was passed. Under that Jurisdictional Act he was allowed to sue for only $1.25 an acre for lands described in those 18 treaties which amounted to 8,800,000 acres, and at $1.25 an acre it would amount to about $11,000,000; and that the attorney general was also to sue for just compensation for sundries promised in those treaties.

They had promised the Indians 500 beeves each year, and clothing, and other supplies for 2 years while they were moving from their habitats to these reservations; they were promised supervisors for each of those reservations and 5 farmers, 5 blacksmiths, and 5 carpenters; to keep a school teacher and a doctor on some of the reservations, and it has been estimated previous to the time when the Jurisdictional Act was passed by the Interior Department that those sundries would amount to a value of about $1,800,000.

Mr. O'CONNOR. What happened to the suit?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is still pending. That Jurisdictional Act also provided for set-offs for the Government against the Indian's awards for support, civilization, health, education, and lands, so that on June 8, 1932, the Government bill for set-offs amounted to about $12,400,000, which was more than, or practically equivalent to the total recovery that the Indians might make.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Has any judgment been rendered?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir.

Mr. O'CONNOR. The suit is still pending?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Now, what is the purpose of this bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. The purpose of this bill is to amend this Jurisdictional Act so as to change the basis of land valuation, the land to be appraised at $5.70 an acre instead of $1.25 an acre.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Do they claim that the land should be appraised upon a valuation basis, that is the valuation at the time of the taking of the land, or now?

Mr. JOHNSON. At the time of the taking of the land.

Mr. O'CONNOR. You claim it was worth $5.70 an acre then? Mr. JOHNSON. They claim it was worth double that amount. The Legislature of the State of California at the request of the men who had made money from mining and who discovered that these lands were being set aside for the Indians, well, the legislature had those lands appraised in 1852, and they were appraised at $100,000,000. They discovered there was gold in some of those lands, and some was fertile, and they thought it was too good land to be given to the Indians, and the legislature appraised these lands at $100,000,000 before the treaties were denied.

Mr. O'CONNOR. You are simply asking Congress now to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to cover claims not litigated. or not in controversy in the suit that is now in the bill; is that it?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; we are making our claim on exactly the same claims that are in the Court of Claims suit, but we are broadening

the basis of the recovery. We are asking the court to jump the price which they set on the land of $1.25 an acre to $5.70 an acre.

Mr. O'CONNOR. That is the only issue as to the value of the land here. Why do you want that jump in value; what is the foundation for that?

Mr. JOHNSON. As I told you, the California Legislature had the land appraised in 1852 at $100,000,000.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I do not know what that means per acre.

Mr. JOHNSON. That would mean a little better than $10 an acre, and the lands that were promised the Indians under these treaties were taken away from them and a large proportion of them were sold at from $1.25 to as high as $10 an acre, and these people struck an average from the lowest and the highest price, and they arrived at the figure of $5.70 an acre. Of course, there are several million acres of that land that are still valuable lands, that are still held by the United States Government in reserve. Some of the land was sold at $1.25 an acre, and some at $10 an acre, and the figure of $5.70 an acre is an average between those two figures.

Mr. O'CONNOR. How do you get at that average? Suppose 1 acre was sold at $10, and the rest was sold at $1.25; you could not say $5.70 was the average price per acre?

Mr. JOHNSON. We do not claim that is an exact proportion of all the lands that were sold, but they say it is a fair valuation of the land at that time. Altogether it only amounts to half of the amount that the California Legislature appraised the land at before it was taken away from the Indians.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Those same lands?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; it amounts to $5.70 an acre; when you take the total acreage it amounts to approximately $50,000,000, which is one-half of what the California State Legislature appraised the lands at before they were taken from the Indians.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Case.

Mr. CASE. It will still have to go to the courts to determine the actual value of the lands?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mr. CASE. Will this fix it?

Mr. JOHNSON. This will fix the value at $5.70 an acre; the jurisdictional act fixes it at $1.25 an acre, the lowest price possible. One of those reservations today supports a population of 1,000,000 people; the value of that land is set in the Jurisdictional Act at $1.25 an acre; and this only increases it to a more reasonable valuation. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Von Bulow.

The next witness is Mr. Thomas Largo, who will be recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS LARGO, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, INC., LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. LARGO. I am president of the California Indian Rights Association, Inc. I just want to tell you some of my connections with the other organizations.

My first connections were with the so-called the Indian board of cooperation at that time, and the name has been changed to the Indians of California, Inc., under the leadership of F. G. Collett.

First, I became acquainted with this organization in 1929. We found out that there were 18 such lost treaties, and Mr. Collett was basing everything on those 18 treaties, and he came to Los Angeles, where we lived, where most of our members lived, that belonged to this organization, and he told us what it meant to us under this act that passed in 1928, which we call the Jurisdictional Act; and he promised in that act that the Indians were to recover not less than $100,000,000.

Here [indicating] is a publication that he circulated after the passage of that Jurisdictional Act; he circulated it among our people and made them believe that the best thing they could do was to employ attorneys of our own.

Then we believed everything that Mr. Collett told us, and we followed him very closely and took a very active part in it, but, after all, we found out that it was just a big shell with nothing in it; and then we began to realize that an organization of some kind among our own people was necessary. I took it up with some of our leaders, we concluded it was necessary, and we worked on it and during the last 3 years we have accomplished something. We have traveled from the very southern part of California up to the extreme northern part of the State, talking to our people, educating our people that it was necessary for them to get together and solve their own problems. As a result of our work, our organization is not only prepared to solve this problem but any other problems whereby we can help our people.

We feel that we are coming to you and telling of our purpose, and we are sure that you will listen to us, and it will be the first time in our history. I say that because we have had this man Collett coming to you year after year, trying to get something for the Indians, but we found it was of no value to our people.

We do not know where the money goes that he collects. Our people have given donations. I, for the first time, I paid my dues of $1, and then after that I paid my $36 for membership in that organization, and after that I gave my donations-I cannot figure the amount-and that is the way it was carried on in the State, and finally we came to the conclusion and found out that we ought to base our organization on the same principles as that of our great Government. We base it under that, and then we feel that it is a proper thing to do in order to solve the problems that we have to meet, and then we feel that we need protection, and we can only be protected by Congressmen and Senators, who are the lawmakers of the country.

Before we came here we had our difficulties, and one of the Indian ladies told me, "You are going to face the cream of the Nation." This is the cream of the Nation; it is you who we are trying to talk to and tell you our story.

Now, my time is limited; I would like to say much more, but we have a little publication here that we publish in order to educate our people, and I have a little article here that I have written myself, and Mrs. Von Bulow is the editor of this paper, and I am telling my story here why we organized, and I would like to have this article of mine go in the record, if you will allow me.