PALM SPRINGS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1937 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Will Rogers (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. By special order of the committee, H. R. 5297 was set for consideration today. If there is no objection, I would like to have the bill printed in the record at this point, together with a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior relative to this matter following the bill. (The bill, H. R. 5297, is as follows:) [H. R. 5297, 75th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To repeal that provision in the Act of March 2, 1917 (39 Stat. L., 976), directing the making of allotments to Indians of the Mission Indian Reservation, California Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the proviso in the Act of March 2, 1917, appearing on page 976 of volume 39 of the United States Statutes at Large, authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to cause allotments in severalty to be made to the Indians belonging to and having tribal rights on the Mission Indian reservations in the State of California be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and, until otherwise provided by Congress, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed not to perfect or complete any allotments heretofore listed or scheduled to any of said Indians which have not been approved by the Secretary of the Interior prior to the passage of this Act. (Letter of the Secretary of the Interior to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, under date of February 4, 1937, is as follows:) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SIR: Submitted herewith for your consideration is a proposed draft of legislation designed to repeal that provision in the act of March 2, 1917 (39 Stat. L. 976), authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to cause allotments in severalty to be made to the Indians belonging to and having tribal rights on the Mission reservations in the State of California. After the passage of the act of March 2, 1917, supra, an allotting agent was assigned to the duty of making allotments on the various Mission reservations, and such allotments were completed on a number of those reservations. However, in some instances the work of allotting under this legislation was never completed. There was at the time considerable agitation of the matter among the Indians themselves, some being in favor of, and some bitterly opposed to. allotments in severalty. Cases arose where the physical features of the tribal holdings were such as to render allotments to individual Indians most inadvisable; and at length a growing sentiment against the governmental policy of allotment in severalty increased to such an extent as to induce Congress, in some instances, at least, to direct that further allotments be not made until otherwise provided by Congress. In this connection especial attention is invited to the act of March 4, 1931 (46 Stat. L. 1518), dealing with the Eastern Cherokees in North Carolina. The evils of the allotment system are now widely recognized, and the present policy of this Department is reflected in the Indian Reorganization Act approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. L. 984). This act provides that no land of any Indian reservation where the Indians have not voted against its application to their affairs shall be allotted in severalty to any Indian. Some of the Mission reservations have voted to retain the provisions of the act of June 18, 1934, supra, while others have failed to take advantage of the benefits to be derived thereunder. It is to the latter class of reservations, of course, that the legislation here proposed would apply. This Department feels that it would be a serious mistake in governmental policy to permit the remaining tribal assets of these Mission Indians to be split up into individual holdings, thus inevitably paving the way for the ultimate loss of the land by the Indians. It is urged, therefore, that the enclosed draft of legislation be promptly and favorably considered. Under date of January 26, the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection by that office to the presentation of this proposed legislation to Congress. Respectfully, HAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior. The CHAIRMAN. Before we call the first witness, I want to say to those who are interested in this bill that we want to hear you. We have no disposition to hurry this matter, and I think we can safely say that we will be able to give you all the time you want on this bill. As is the usual custom, the proponents of the measure will be called first. After they have finished, we will hear the opponents. Of course, that will not preclude those who are interested in the support of the bill or any others who may appear later being heard even after we start hearing the opponents. The first witness to be called is Mr. John R. T. Reeves, Chief Counsel, Office of Indian Affairs. Mr. Reeves. STATEMENT OF JOHN R. T. REEVES, ESQ., CHIEF COUNSEL, OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. REEVES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for the information of the committee I might simply state that this legislation has this background: During the earlier days, as early as 1891, Congress created a commission to go out in California and set apart reservations for each of these bands, or villages, of Mission Indians, with authority in the Secretary of the Interior to issue a tribal patent to each band for the reservation set apart for them, which patent would declare that the lands would be held in trust for a period of 25 years. Another provision in the same statute further authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in his discretion, to make allotments to the Mission Indians in areas of considerable size, but not to exceed 640 acres, or less than 160 acres of grazing land to each Indian, and in addition to that not to exceed 20 acres of arable land to each single person over 21 years of age. Now, on the making of those allotments, he was to issue a second trust patent to the allottee that would supersede or supplant the patent to the band, and it was so expressly stated in the 1891 act. There was a further provision that after allotments had been made and on the expiration of the 25-year trust period set up in the patent to the band or village of Indians, the Secretary of the Interior was to complete the transaction by issuing a fee patent to the allottee himself, or to the band, for the residue in each reservation not allotted to the several individual members. Well, apparently, it shortly developed that there were insufficient lands in these reservations to make allotments in those areas, and also there was no provision in that act of 1891 to extend the trust period in the communal patent to the band of Mission Indians. In 1917, or about that time, a measure was advocated and enacted by Congress, found in the act of March 2, 1917, which changed the basis of the area to be allotted to the several individual members. of these bands and also provided for the extension of the trust period in the patents issued to the villages or bands. Now the wording of that statute in 1917 evidently created some confusion. It contains the word "direct" as well as the word "authorize." In other words it authorized the Secretary of the Interior to make allotments to the Indians belonging to the Mission Reservation in California in area provided for in the act of June 25, 1910, rather than in the area provided for in the act of January 12, 1891. Some doubt or confusion evidently arose regarding the provisions of this 1917 act, as to whether it was mandatory to the extent of directing, or requiring, the Secretary of the Interior to make allotments severally to the Mission Indians, regardless of local conditions, regardless of the suitability of the land for allotment, and regardless of whether the Indians desired allotments in several. Now an allotting agent was placed in the field and allotments were made on a number of those reservations for which patents were issued. In other reservations allotments were not made. Now, coming down to the Palm Springs situation, that is a checkerboard reservation. The even-numbered sections belonged to the Indians and the alternate or odd sections were granted to the Union Pacific Railroad, and ultimately passed into private hands, and so you have an area there of considerable extent arranged in what we call a checkerboard set-up, the Indians owning the evennumbered sections and the white man holding the odd-numbered sections; and very, very few of those are suitable for farming purposes, without irrigation. They are desert lands. However, they have considerable value for scenic and recreational purposes. Those lands are adjacent to the town of Palm Springs, which grew up on one of the odd-numbered sections that passed to the railroad and subsequently into private ownership, and the town has developed on this site a winter resort, and the lands adjacent to this town are of considerable value for town-site purposes, a quite substantial value. In 1923 a schedule was received in the Office of Indians Affairs containing the names of some 50 members of the Palm Springs Band. Before that schedule was submitted to the Department for approval protests began to come in from some of the Indians. It appeared that they were divided in their own judgment as to whether the allotments should, or should not be made. Some evidently were willing to receive them; others were bitterly opposed to the allotment scheme and refused to accept allotments and continued to |