and if the Indians are to be told that those commissioners had no power to make treaties, or that the President or Government can falsify itself, will you expect them hereafter to enter into any treaty, or keep inviolate one after having entered into it? Can it be expected that they will place any reliance on any Government agent who may be sent to negotiate for their removal? Mr. SHEPPARD. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. MEANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have not finished my remarks. Mr. SHEPPARD. How much longer time would you need, Mr. Meaney?

Mr. MEANEY. I should think at least 5 minutes.

Mr. SHEPPARD. By unanimous consent, the gentleman's time is extended 5 minutes.

Mr. MEANEY. I thank you. Now, then, Mr. Chairman, those treaties were not ratified. The Indians of California then had to look for a place, a tribunal or forum to which they could present their claims. They had a right unquestionably. The only tribunal to which they could appeal was the Congress of the United States. The Congress assumed the duty of guardian of the Indians and made the Indians the wards of the Government. The doors of the courts were not open to them for two reasons: The first was, you cannot sue the sovereign; and, incidentally, until the United States. Court of Claims was created by act of Congress, any person having a claim against the Government had to appeal to Congress for the payment of that claim. For example, if a man had built the Capitol of the United States under contract and the Government refused to pay him, there was an obligation on the part of the Government, but he could not sue the sovereign, as we all know, but he had, before the creation of the United States Court of Claims, to appeal to the Congress. Surely, that was a right he had and similarly these Indians had, if not a greater right, an equal right because the land was taken from the Indians without their consent and against their will. But the Indians had a just claim, and the only tribunal open to them was and is the Congress, and they have come here seeking relief on those claims.

Now, then, there is a question of political policy involved, and that is one which the courts cannot interfere with, and that involves giving them relief for the wrong done them arising out of these treaties and the taking of their lands without their consent. The treaties were never ratified and, therefore, the courts would have no jurisdiction to consider them. The Congress, therefore, has to set up a declaration of policy as to dealing with these California Indians. It has indicated what that policy should be in 1850, when they authorized the appointment, and appropriated the money, for the Commission to negotiate those treaties. All we are doing now is asking that the Congress carry out that policy and do now what should have been done in 1851 and 1852.

The question comes up as to the practicability of this bill. There are several features which should be kept in mind in considering this proposed legislation. In the first place, this is an anomalous situation. The Congress is now called upon to settle, under one bill, the claims of all of the Indians of one State. In fact, I do not know of any other single piece of legislation which has ever attempted to do that which has been asked to be done in the California case. Usually you are confronted with only one treaty. Here you have 18

treaties and, further, you have to consider the fact that a great number of Indians, were not treated with, but which the Congress directed should be treated with back in 1851 and 1852. So instead of having one case to consider, you have something over 18, because there were 18 separate and distinct treaties entered into.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in considering the amount involved in this case, you must consider the fact that there are these 18 treaties, or more, 18 unratified treaties and other Indians to be considered. Now, I do not like to get into the question of amount, because I am always reminded of the case of the ingenious individual who proved that a cat had 10 tails. This is the way he went about it, as I remember: No cat, he argued, has nine tails. One cat has one more tail than no cat. Therefore, one cat has 10 tails.

Well, now, the same situation might be somewhat relevant to the California case. It has been stated that the Indians would get judgment of over $90,000,000. I cannot agree to that figure, for my own part. I do not think it is possible, and I do not think the Indians, under the terms of S. 1651 as it passed the Senate, would get that much. The treaty Indians would get a gross judgment of $12,000,000. That is a gross judgment. There were 8,500,000 acres of land, approximately, according to the figures of the Interior Department, which were set apart for them under the 18 unratified treaties. The Attorney General has claimed $1,800,000, I think, as the value of the personal property and other things promised under the 18 treaties. That is the gross amount. I do not think, from the history of Indian legislation, that it is very likely they will get that gross judgment. Incidentally, I should say that if Lloyds of London were giving odds on this matter they would give you 10 to 1 odds the Indians would not get anything, because the Indian cases in the Court of Claims show, in the last 20 years, out of 100 cases filed in the court, which involve billions and billions of dollars of claims, there were only a few cases where judgment was rendered, and the entire amount of the judgments was only $20,000,000.

Mr. SHEPPARD. The chairman has to call the gentleman's attention that his time has expired. Do you wish to file a written report or an extension of your remarks?

Mr. MEANEY. I would like the privilege of revising and extending my remarks, if I may, in the record.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Any objection? It is so ordered.

Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to have included a very brief paragraph he cited in the case of Georgia v. Wooster, in which John Marshall laid down the rule which may be interesting to the other members of the committee.

Mr. MEANEY. Mr. Chairman, there was a brief filed over in the Senate committee, and I would ask that that be incorporated in this hearing, or else, if the chairman desires, we could make it shorter.

Mr. SHEPPARD. The chairman would request that you do that. In other words, as long as we can survey the remainder of our testimony, we would appreciate that very much.

Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a few questions?

Mr. SHEPPARD. Surely. We will devote the next 5 minutes to questions if that is necessary.

Mr. DIMOND. I hope it will not take that long. Mr. Meaney, do you know why, in the bill that was enacted in 1928, the Indians

were, in effect, barred from choosing their own attorneys to represent them?

Mr. MEANY. No, I do not know, Mr. Dimond; but I might say this, because this is relevant, I think, that the Congress, in a special jurisdictional act, has the power of enacting such legislation if it so desires. In addition to that, I might make this statement: That the Indians of California, as tribes or bands, cannot select attorneys of their own choice, because of sections 2103 to 2106 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which require that any contract entered into with Indians, regarding their lands or the services of attorneys relative to lands, must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Senator Butler and I submitted a contract to the Interior Department several years ago, for approval, and the main objection to the contract was that the Indians did not need an attorney, that they were being represented by the attorney general of the State of California.

Mr. DIMOND. One more question along that line, Mr. Chairman: In your opinion, does this bill set aside, as to the people included in this provision, sections 2103 to 2106 of the Revised Statutes?

Mr. MEANEY. It does, to a certain degree. It does, Mr. Dimond, but the language of the bill has a limitation, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to certify the petitions required to be signed by Indians desiring to employ attorneys.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Any further questions?

Mr. DIMOND. One further question: In your judgment, does this bill differ substantially from the other jurisdictional bills-differ essentially from the other jurisdictional bills as to the basis, the foundation of it?

Mr. MEANEY. It does, in this respect, in that, in the usual jurisdictional bill, there is a treaty which has been ratified. In this case, the treaties not having been ratified, it is important that the Congress set up a declaration of policy which the United States has continued to carry out, and you would not be setting any precedent in doing that.

Mr. DIMOND. I may invite your attention, if I may, to the Alaska Jurisdictional Act, which was passed several years ago, which was not based upon any treaty. So that is precedent for it.

Mr. MEANEY. Yes; that is precedent for it.

Mr. SHEPPARD: Anything further? The next witness is Mr. Collett. Mr. DIMOND. This is not a question, Mr. Chairman, but may I make a very brief observation here?

Mr. SHEPPARD. Surely.

Mr. DIMOND. I am somewhat uncertain as to how the provisions which start on line 21, beginning with the word "and" and continue over and embrace line 21 on page 3, and continue over and embrace all of page 4, are going to appear to the Members of the House, because Congress is called upon to assume that the Congress intended, years ago, to negotiate treaties with all of the other Indians of California with whom no treaties were negotiated; and if treaties were negotiated, they would have been the same type of treaties; and, therefore, based upon that, these Indians with whom no treaties are made are entitled to the same consideration as the Indians with whom the unratified treaties were made. I am wondering whether it would not

be possible to restate that language so as to bring about the same effect without being obliged to indulge in all of the presumptions that are embraced therein.

I say that for the consideration of the attorneys so that they may give it further thought. I presume they have thought about it a great deal and adopted this language after very full consideration, and I recall that Mr. Collier expressed approval of it, too; but still it is possible that some improvement may be made. I am wondering if some other formula could be thought out that would give them the same thing without being obliged to indulge in the presumptions embraced in that language.

I thank you very much.

Mr. SHIPE. That is a little difficult to state, unless you state the policy that the Commission was authorized and directed to negotiate the treaties with all of the Indians.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Collett, you will state your name and address and those whom you are representing at this hearing, please.

STATEMENT OF F. G. COLLETT, REPRESENTING INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is F. G. Collett, and I represent the Indians of California, Inc., as its executive representative. It was I who initiated the original jurisdictional act for the Indians of California in 1920.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Pardon the interruption, Mr. Collett, but the Chair would like to give you this indication: We have 27 minutes, and I believe, if I were you, I would try to arrange to use 22 or 23 minutes, and leave 5 minutes possibly open for interrogation, if that is

necessary.

Mr. COLLETT. I thank you.

Mr. SHEPPARD. I want to say, at this time, the Chair figures he is quite fortunate in having colleagues with him who are patient and are willing to see that we have the proper and equitable representation from these bodies.

So you will proceed, Mr. Collett.

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to the fact that, at this hearing, either day before yesterday or today, the record contains a copy of the report of the Secretary of the Interior on S. 1651 and on S. 1779, a joint report. There are some 13 pages in all to that. An answer has been prepared to that, which has not so far been filed, and I should like to have that incorporated as a part of the record.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Have you the answer here that you can file?

Mr. COLLETT. It is not here, but can be submitted today or to

morrow.

Mr. SHEPPARD. I suggest that you submit it not later than tomorrow at noon, you will, please, and it is so ordered that it become

if

a part of the record.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Pardon me, but this subject you refer to, these communications, are now a part of the record of this committee? Mr. COLLETT. They are not a part of the record. Mr. SHEPPARD. Proceed, then.

Mr. COLLETT. The report is on the bills S. 1651 and S. 1779, and from the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Very well, proceed.

Mr. COLLETT. I am dealing with the present legislation, and I have not time to go into any of the history of that legislation.

This bill was patterned after the bill S. 1793 that was presented during the last Congress, the Seventy-fourth Congress. An extended report was made to it by the Secretary of the Interior. Hearings were had in the House and in the Senate, and that bill was finally reported. by the Senate and passed, and reported by the House and passed; and in that bill, the language to which the Commissioner of Indian Affairs is now objecting, was that same language, the same words. He indicated that the Supreme Court case of the Shoshones, which was rendered on the 4th day of January 1937, was the first indication that he knew of of how the Supreme Court would rule in the case of "just compensation." Away back in 1927 it was a wellestablished fact that the Court allowed for something in addition to the principal, when case is submitted to the Court, giving it the power to make such a finding. That is not new.

The present bill was reported on by the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In fact, these reports are prepared in the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

The Senate committee held many hearings this year, and the House committee has spent considerable time considering this bill, and all of the time the same words have been in the bill.

I may say that as representatives of the Indians of California-we were asked to get together all factions, and we got together and spent nearly 2 weeks trying to draft a bill that we could all agree to. That bill was drafted under the supervision of the present Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He sat in those conferences. Two bills were prepared. One carrying all of the basic amendments to the jurisdictional act of 1928. The other provided merely for a provision for the Indians to select attorneys. The reason that two bills were prepared was because a minority of those in the conference thought that there ought to be separate bills, and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs told those delegates that, if a separate bill was reported, in his opinion, it ought to be reported at the same time as the bill for the basic amendments was reported, and because of that adverse view, there ought to be a separate bill. Some of us did not believe that that procedure would get the Indians their rights. to have attorneys of their own selection. In fact, we believed that it would lead to depriving them from their representation in court by attorneys of their own selection.

The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, before the matter was finally submitted to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, broke down those two bills into four bills, and all of them were submitted by him to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. It then understood by our agreement that, whatever the Senate committee and House committee did, the conferees would agree to, unless the Indians were to be deprived of their rights, but the agreement was to follow the advice or decision of the committees. When the bill was finally reported, it carried the identical language that had been worked out in the agreement and which is before you in mimeo