be represented by attorneys of their own selection. We realize and recognize that this is a case to settle finally and forever all of the rights of the Indians of California and, therefore, we feel that they should be represented. Senator Thomas, in a hearing in the St. Francis Hotel, on the 2d day of July 1934, told the Indians: "The Indians of California will never have had a day in court until they are represented by attorneys of their own selection." Mr. WILSON. I would like to find that reference, where Chairman Thomas made that assertion. Mr. COLLETT. I will find it for you. The attorney general has often made that statement, and in the first bill-the report on S. 1619 and S. 1793—in that bill, there was a provision for attorneys, and it was reported by Senator Thomas. That was the first bill that he reported, and that is the hearing that I have mentioned in San Francisco. The same provision for attorneys was later taken out by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, because the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and some of his representatives went to Senator King and got him to recall the recall making provision for those attorneys. That was during the Seventy-fourth Congress. I went with several others to see Senator King, and he said, "I have no objection to the bill, at all. I merely asked for it to be returned as a courtesy to the representatives of the Department of the Interior who came to me." Mr. SHEPPARD. The Chair will have to call attention to the fact that we have only 3 minutes left. Would you care to extend your remarks further? Mr. COLLETT. I want to say the Indians of California did not roam; they had their abiding places; they had well-defined acreages, and tribal lands, from the beginning. They are not now known as tribal Indians; they are known as Indians of California, and have not had tribal relations for years. I do not know that that makes any outstanding difference, but the statement was made that they were tribes and Mr. WILSON. You mean to say none of the Indians of California have tribal relations? Mr. COLLETT. There may be a few of them, but the majority have no tribal relations. Mr. WILSON. Is it not a fact that you have made that statement before? Mr. COLLETT. If I have, I have already corrected it, that the majority of them do not have tribal relations, and perhaps some of the other Indians do have tribal relations; and the few that have them and wish to maintain them would be very happy for them to do so, but most of them have long since abandoned their tribal relations. Mr. LA RUSE. Mr. Chairman, just a moment, please. Mr. SHEPPARD. You represent whom? Mr. LA RUSE. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs. I do not want to take any of Mr. Collett's time, but either now or later I just want to clarify the record for the committee. Mr. SHEPPARD. Under the circumstances and the fact that it is now 1 minute past 12, and I presume the House is in session, I am going to ask my colleagues if there would be any objection to a continua tion of these hearings tomorrow morning? I think we can complete them tomorrow, if we will start our session at the same time as we did this morning, and those who wish to appear here be here at 9:30, those who are interested in the California bill that is now before this committee, and will have their right to appear, and we would like very much, if possible, to have the committee have the opportunity to clear up the hearing by tomorrow. So, if there is anyone else who may desire to be heard, please ask them to appear here at that time. At this time the Chair will accept a motion for adjournment. (Thereupon a recess was taken until 9:30 a. m., Friday, Aug. 13, 1937.) CALIFORNIA INDIANS JURISDICTIONAL ACT FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1937 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a. m., Hon. Harry R. Sheppard presiding. Mr. SHEPPARD. The committee will please come to order. The Chair will request those who testify this morning to give their name and address, and indicate whom they represent, so that the reporter may keep the record straight. Mr. Collett, you have practically 32 minutes left, let us say 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF F. G. COLLETT-Resumed Mr. SHEPPARD. Are there any further questions to be asked of Mr. Collett? Do you care to ask any questions, Mr. Dimond? Mr. DIMOND. I have no further questions. I think Mr. Collett answered all the questions I wanted to ask. Mr. SHEPPARD. I wonder if our colleague, Mrs. Honeyman, had any questions to ask. Do you know? Mr. DIMOND. Mrs. Honeyman may be a little delayed, Mr. Chair man. Mr. SHEPPARD. Under those circumstances we will release this witness and reserve the rest of his time until after my colleague, Mrs. Honeyman, arrives. Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman, I made a statement yesterday that the case had not been handled with due diligence. I would like to submit a chronological history of the case before the court; when the case was filed, and when the arguments were made, showing that what I said is substantiated by the court record itself. Mr. SHEPPARD. And that will complete your statement? Mr. COLLETT. That completes my statement. The CHAIRMAN. Other than for such questions as may be asked by other members of the committee. Mr. COLLETT. So far as I know, that completes my statement. (There was no objection.) (The documents referred to are as follows:) CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Mr. F. G. COLLETT, Washington, D. C. · HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., July 15, 1937. DEAR SIR: Your inquiry as to why the Commission bill did not pass the House received, and I wish to say that there were only two outstanding ob 10411-37-6 jections to it. First, the bill created a new commission and called for the appointment of commissioners, and the members of the House thought we had commissioners enough and that the expense to be involved around this commission did not justify what might naturally be expected in results. The second objection, which was a vital one, was that it would disrupt judgments that had already been entered by the courts years ago. The attitude of the House was to not open up judgments of courts that had passed upon matters in bygone years, and I am afraid that the same objection will be raised to the next Commission bill, namely, the one I have introduced myself. The appointment of commissioners has been removed, but no Claims Commission can justify its existence unless it is authorized to go back and examine not only decisions but treaties themselves. There was very little said about attorneys and practically nothing said after it was explained that the attorneys fees are always limited by the contract made with the Department of the Interior. Thanking you for your inquiry, I am Very sincerely, USHER L. BURDICK. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER TERM, 1934, No. 930 INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONERS, V. THE UNITED STATES Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims To the Honorable the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: The petitioners herein, by their counsel, respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari be issued by this Court to review a judgment of the United States Court of Claims in the above-entitled cause. STATEMENT (1) The petitioners by act of Congress approved May 18, 1928, Public Law No. 423, Seventieth Congress, were authorized to present their claims to the United States Court of Claims for damages they had suffered by reason of the failure of the respondent to comply with the provisions of those certain 18 unratified treaties of 1852 entered into by representatives of the petitioners and the respondent. In this act of Congress, hereinafter termed the "Enabling Act", section 4 thereof provides that the attorney general of California shall sign and verify the petition filed in the Court of Claims of the United States, and required the same to be filed within 3 years after the passage of the act. Within the 3-year period the attorney general of California filed the petition in the Court of Claims and, thereafter on March 14, 1932, filed an amended petition in that court. (2) On December 21, 1931, J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and James M. Hanley petitioned the Court of Claims to be recognized as attorneys of record in the above-entitled cause (R. 1). (3) On March 21, 1932, the Court of Claims denied that petition upon the ground that "The court is of the opinion that it is without authority under the jurisdictional act to grant the petition herein to recognize J. W. Henderson as attorney of record." (R. 16.) (4) On November 10, 1934, J. W. Henderson, J. E. Pemberton, and T. L. Sloan, each of them being members of the bar in good standing in the Court of Claims of the United States petitioned that court on behalf of Indians of California to recognize J. W. Henderson as attorney of record for the said Indians and attached to their petition affidavits of Indians of California in support thereof (R. 16). (5) On February 4, 1935, after oral argument, the Court of Claims overruled the petition, presumably upon the same ground the petition of December 21, 1931, was denied (R. 34). 6. This petition is filed within the time required by the rules of this court and seeks to obtain a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Claims denying the petition of November 10, 1934, which judgment was entered by the said court on February 4, 1935. REASONS WHY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED The petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari be issued to review the aforesaid judgment of the Court of Claims of the United States, and in support thereof submits: (a) The Indians of California are citizens of the State of California and of the United States, and as such, they are legally entitled to be represented in court by attorneys of their own selection and choice. (b) The Court of Claims by its judgment denying the petition of November 10, 1934, has denied to the Indians of California their inherent constitutional right of a full and complete hearing; a hearing given without right of petitioners to be represented by counsel of their own selection does not meet the constitutional requirement of due process. (c) The Enabling Act of May 28, 1928, does not prohibit the Indians of California from having attorneys of their selection in the trial of their case in the Court of Claims. (d) This is a case of first impression. We know of no case arising from an act of Congress containing a provision authorizing or directing a State officer to sign and verify a petition in the Court of Claims in which citizens of the United States are parties plaintiff with a recognized, justifiable claim. Such an act of Congress, it is submitted, should be so construed that it will preserve the right of the petitioners to have their own attorneys prepare and prosecute their case, if such a construction does no violence to and is fairly within the language and intent of the Enabling Act. (e) The decision of the Court of Claims is untenable, and is in conflict with the decisions of this court in dealing with the right of litigants to be represented in court by attorneys of their own choice. (f) Should the decision of the Court of Claims be permitted to stand it would deny to the Indians their constitutional right to a full and fair hearing, which carries with it the correlative right to be represented by attorneys of their selection. Wherefore, the petitioners respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari be issued by this court, direct to the Court of Claims of the United States, directing and commanding it to produce in this court the entire record in this case for examination and determination by it. JOHN W. HENDERSON, J. E. PEMBERTON, T. L. SLOAN, Counsel for Petitioners. A. K. SHIPE, Washington, D. C. Of counsel: ESCH, KERR, TAYLOR & SHIPE, Washington, D. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER TERM, 1934, No. 930 INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONERS, V. THE UNITED STATES On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims of the United States Brief for the petitioners OPINION BELOW The order of the Court of Claims is found in the record, page 34. JURISDICTION The judgment of the Court of Claims was entered February 4, 1935. Petition for writ of certiorari was filed May 1, 1935. The jurisdiction of the Court rests on the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. L. 939; U. S. Code, title 28, 'sec. 288). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Public Law No. 423, Seventieth Congress (45 Stat. L. 602), hereinafter termed the "Enabling Act", approved May 18, 1928, conferred jurisdiction upon the |